Re: Severe Penalties

[Meridiani]

Someone correct this assertion if it is wrong: I assert that it was Elder Boyd K. Packer who mentioned something about severe penalties, in a talk he gave at this last General Conference of the Church.

Something about the "penalties" attached to talking negatively about anything that the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. might have done wrong.

I am deeply saddened that Elder Packer did not say just what those penalties were.

I am totally disappointed that Mormon Church Leaders have to continually make subliminal threats, in order to instill conformity through fear!

I have children yet in their 30s. (And, so am also a grandparent).

When raising those children of mine, it seemed very appropriate and very-adequate to have a system of parenting in my home where natural consequences were the result of wrongdoing: those "results" just plain followed, as naturally as breathing. They were both age-appropriate and quite fair and reasonable, in their "naturalness", to coin a word.

In short, there was nothing severe or extreme about the discipline, in my home.

HOWEVER, if there had been a need for a hands-on discipline that was "custom fit" to the occasion (beyond the general rules and guidelines that were in place), then we--as parents--would have spelled out just what those consequences would be. There was nothing of what my own generation was taught with the old saying, "The Boogeyman will get you if you don't watch out!"

FEAR is not a good motivator! I am always surprised (in an unpleasant way) at the insensitivity of people whose remonstrations have the "texture, feel, and flavor" of words like those spoken by Mr. Elder Packer, in that specific talk, earlier this month.

What I hear is a "boogeyman" sort of warning! That those "consequences" aren't even spelled out is just what one would expect from someone who wishes to appeal to fear rather than to integrity.

I wish he had not acted the way he did and said what he said: it was a gross disappointment, to me.

[Amillia]

I have found that the most severe penalties to come from talking negatively about the Prophet Joseph Smith jr....were natural consequences, if you consider the withdrawl of the Spirit of Christ/Holy Ghost and the loss of power in the priesthood ~ severe natural consequences. NOT TO MENTION the accompanying spiritual blindness ~

The natural consequence of such a thing as talking negatively about any prophet is the flipping of the track switch putting yourself off the straight and narrow way, onto a diverse path that leads down and out.

You act like the severe consequence starts with the disaplinary actions of the earthly guardians. They are the LAST of the severe consequences, persipitated by the spiritual darkness the perp has consequently fallen into through this act.

The Lord and His servants only can warn us of the doors to hell, they aren't dragging us kicking and screaming into them. There are always natural/spiritual consequences to the breaking of any and all commandments, and Satan is just waiting for us to even look upon a woman to lust after her/ talk negatively about the Lord's servants... so that HE, SATAN, can take over when we lose the Spiritual protection of the Holy Ghost/Spirit of Christ.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Meridiani@Apr 16 2005, 03:26 PM

Someone correct this assertion if it is wrong: I assert that it was Elder Boyd K. Packer who mentioned something about severe penalties, in a talk he gave at this last General Conference of the Church.

Something about the "penalties" attached to talking negatively about anything that the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. might have done wrong.

I am deeply saddened that Elder Packer did not say just what those penalties were.

I am totally disappointed that Mormon Church Leaders have to continually make subliminal threats, in order to instill conformity through fear!

I have children yet in their 30s. (And, so am also a grandparent).

When raising those children of mine, it seemed very appropriate and very-adequate to have a system of parenting in my home where natural consequences were the result of wrongdoing: those "results" just plain followed, as naturally as breathing. They were both age-appropriate and quite fair and reasonable, in their "naturalness", to coin a word.

In short, there was nothing severe or extreme about the discipline, in my home.

HOWEVER, if there had been a need for a hands-on discipline that was "custom fit" to the occasion (beyond the general rules and guidelines that were in place), then we--as parents--would have spelled out just what those consequences would be. There was nothing of what my own generation was taught with the old saying, "The Boogeyman will get you if you don't watch out!"

FEAR is not a good motivator! I am always surprised (in an unpleasant way) at the insensitivity of people whose remonstrations have the "texture, feel, and flavor" of words like those spoken by Mr. Elder Packer, in that specific talk, earlier this month.

What I hear is a "boogeyman" sort of warning! That those "consequences" aren't even spelled out is just what one would expect from someone who wishes to appeal to fear rather than to integrity.

I wish he had not acted the way he did and said what he said: it was a gross disappointment, to me.

Deeply saddened? Really? Aren't you being just a tad, okay, more than a tad, melodramatic?

Who cares what you assert. Tell us what he said and then you don't have to assert anything.

Who gives a hamster's patootie if you grossly disapppointed that Elder Packer, according to your assertion, didn't tell you the exact consequence of not following whatever principle you assert he was trying to teach. It is a slothful servant that needs to be told every single little detail. Have you never heard of study, prayer, meditations, scripture? Buy a clue and study it out yourself. Don't you have any clue how the Plan of Salvation works?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

In any case, it's pretty obvious that the "severe penalties" Elder Packer was referring to were those on the list in D&C 121:15-25.

Although it's interesting that these penalties include that the descendants of a critic of Joseph Smith may not have the Priesthood. I don't think Elder Packer really meant to include that particular penalty, which I would be very surprised if the Church enforced.

[Dale]

Hi,

Personally I agree that the LDS Church has to tell the academics if you arn't on our side then get lost. Let's suppose an intellectual in the conservative Southern Baptist Convention became an advocate for homo-sexuality. Or let's say he treated Jesus as a homo-sexual rather than the Savior of mankind. I don't think he would escape severe penalties for long.

With Joseph Smith Jr. there isn't anything new on his life to reveal to the world. I have seen all the quotes over & over again. But if you get a scholar who publishes an expose on Joseph Smith Jr. news papers pick up the story all over the country. And if the book's prominent the anti-Mormons start using the new quotes because the old ones had been used to much. It's expensive to send out 50,000 missionaries, advertise & have to contend with public relations problems these books cause. I am not sure the best response they can give is we can't do anything with authors who try to make money off of their membership.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Of course, from the timing of D&C 121 and its language, the criticism Joseph Smith was referring to is likely to have been accusations that he was practicing polygamy -- which happened to be true.

I think it was George Q. Cannon who wrote, during the last years of polygamy's practice in Utah, that he feared that the practice and the need to conceal it was causing the Saints to raise up a generation too accustomed to lying. The habits of excessive secrecy, half-truths, and keeping a heavy hand on Church scholarship I think go back to the part of the Church's institutional character that was formed as a response to the anti-polygamy persecutions.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 21 2005, 11:37 AM

Of course, from the timing of D&C 121 and its language, the criticism Joseph Smith was referring to is likely to have been accusations that he was practicing polygamy -- which happened to be true.

Was the accusation actually polygamy? I thought that the formal charge was "adultery" before the Liberty jail incarceration.

[Dale]

Hi,

I reject claim's Fanny Alger was Joseph's plural wife. A lot of info either comes from person's who repeated rumors they had heard. An affair is hardly polygamy unless a ceremony was performed.

A book entitled Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is online if one's interested in the various polygamy debates. http://www.restorationbookstore.org

Sincerely,

Dale

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I would think characterizing Joseph Smith's relationships with women other than Emma as "affairs" instead of "polygamy" is kind of like out of the frying pan, into the fire, no?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Dale@Apr 22 2005, 04:55 PM

Hi,

I reject claim's Fanny Alger was Joseph's plural wife. A lot of info either comes from person's who repeated rumors they had heard. An affair is hardly polygamy unless a ceremony was performed.

A book entitled Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is online if one's interested in the various polygamy debates. http://www.restorationbookstore.org

Sincerely,

Dale

Thanks for the link Dale! I totally agree with you about Fanny Alger ~ but I don't believe JS was an adulterer at all.

[Dale]

Hi,

Amillia I have found it difficult to convince someone who feels Joseph Smith Jr. an adulterer otherwise. The website I linked to represents traditional RLDS beliefs. Books like Joseph Smith 3rd Pragmatic Prohet my cool Community of Christ scholar believes Joseph Smith Jr. to have been a polygamist. Both views work for me although I like the traditional RLDS view better.

With D.&C. 132 there were disputes about the documents authenticity. Those who feel it was inspire bring out Joseph Smith Jr. from the stigna of polygamy by accepting it as comind from God. RLDS being staunch anti-polygamists rejected it for religious reasons. I don't want to say Joseph Smith Jr. was an adulteror. But I do have to admit lot's of views on Joseph Smith Jr. & polygamy exists. Some of the views arn't kind to him, but discussion of these views do occur.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Dale@Apr 22 2005, 10:46 PM

Hi,

Amillia I have found it difficult to convince someone who feels Joseph Smith Jr. an adulterer otherwise. The website I linked to represents traditional RLDS beliefs. Books like Joseph Smith 3rd Pragmatic Prohet my cool Community of Christ scholar believes Joseph Smith Jr. to have been a polygamist. Both views work for me although I like the traditional RLDS view better.

With D.&C. 132 there were disputes about the documents authenticity.  Those who feel it was inspire bring out Joseph Smith Jr. from the stigna of polygamy by accepting it as comind from God. RLDS being staunch anti-polygamists rejected it for religious reasons. I don't want to say Joseph Smith Jr. was an adulteror. But I do have to admit lot's of views on Joseph Smith Jr. & polygamy exists. Some of the views arn't kind to him, but discussion of these views do occur.

Sincerely,

Dale

I have seen most all the discussions and quotes which state JS was not only a polygamist secretly, but that he was an adulterer. They don't impress me because they are statements of men.

So many times we write things, or say things in pure bias, leaning to our own feelings and understandings. Sometimes we say things out of personal rejection or hurt that we brought upon ourselves.

Many back then had 'expectations' that were not met. Christ had the same problem with the Jews. They expected one kind of Christ as they interpreted the prophecies, and Christ was something totally different than what they wanted.

Therefore they found cause against Him everyway they could.

It was not different with JS. He was totally miss understood, and his intentions were found demonic. When if one really understood the spirit of the man, they would have found that he was very humble, and submissive to the Father. He was asked to do more, in his short lifetime, than any one of his accusers would ever understand.

They put his actions in the context of their own minds and hearts (which were not pure) and found him wanting.

I think this scripture in D&C 121:16 explains much:

D&C 121: 16-17

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

The Spirit can show us our sins, even the ones we have deeply hidden. If we knew our own hearts and minds, and could submit ourselves to the examination of The Spirit of Christ... we would find we are not worthy to judge anyone's hearts, minds or intentions.

We see things through colored glasses without the Spirit to clearify ~ and that is the way we tell our own stories and the stories of others.

Nothing can document the sins of others, not even personal experiences ~ because they will all be tainted with our own sinful discolorations and thus biased.

Holy God knows the truth about us, or anyone else. If we ask, we can know the truth of all things, but we must be willing to accept that truth....and that is where many fail to receive ~

For what is a gift, if it is not accepted?

[Dale]

Hi,

Hi,

Amillia have seen some documents like diary & journal notations that cicumstantionally implicate Joseph Smith Jr. in marriage speculation. But most of what I read about Joseph Smith Jr. and polygamy is out of old affidavits & stories not from documents of this type. People can say anything in a story or affidavit. I hate to discount all polygamy proofs myself. Some of these appear to be authentic.

The Temple Lot case frequently cited by over educated academics academics & anti-Mormons as substantiating Joseph Smith Jr. was legally a polygamist. But the item they all leave out is the Judge's decision which went against the very testimonies the academics & anti-Mormons point to. At most the Judge could say under U.S. law if any of the women's claim's were true they were but "sports in nest hiding." RLDS Apostle Russel F. Ralston said these claim's failed because of "lack of evidence" & "contradictory information."

Here's an example of a bit of contradictory evidence I stumbled upon in a 1907 letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs. He claimed Hyrum Smith was involved in courtship of his sister Almira to Joseph Smith Jr. The difficulty is the date for Almiras visit to Nauvoo looked funny to me. Then it hit me after a lot of study that the presence of Hyrum Smith Jr. was a possible serious anacronism. I noticed from looking at Mormon Enigma by Newell & Avery that the story as repeated in Todd Comptom's In Sacred Lonliness had Hyrum Smith agreeing with polygamy while other accounts for the same date have him an active opponent of polygamy. If I am right he perjured himself. Of course I might resolve my concern some day. I got a book entitled Mormonism Shadow or Reality? which uses this letter to prove sexuality in Joseph's plural marriages.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Dale@Apr 23 2005, 01:30 PM

Hi,

Hi,

Amillia have seen some documents like diary & journal notations that cicumstantionally implicate Joseph Smith Jr. in marriage speculation. But most of what I read about Joseph Smith Jr. and polygamy is out of old affidavits & stories not from documents of this type. People can say anything in a story or affidavit. I hate to discount all polygamy proofs myself. Some of these appear to be authentic.

The Temple Lot case frequently cited by over educated academics academics & anti-Mormons as substantiating Joseph Smith Jr. was legally a polygamist. But the item they all leave out is the Judge's decision which went against the very testimonies the academics & anti-Mormons point to. At most the Judge could say under U.S. law if any of the women's claim's were true they were but "sports in nest hiding." RLDS Apostle Russel F. Ralston said these claim's failed because of "lack of evidence" & "contradictory information."

Here's an example of a bit of contradictory evidence I stumbled upon in a 1907 letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs. He claimed Hyrum Smith was involved in courtship of his sister Almira to Joseph Smith Jr. The difficulty is the date for Almiras visit to Nauvoo looked funny to me. Then it hit me after a lot of study that the presence of Hyrum Smith Jr. was a possible serious anacronism. I noticed from looking at Mormon Enigma by Newell & Avery that the story as repeated in Todd Comptom's In Sacred Lonliness had Hyrum Smith agreeing with polygamy while other accounts for the same date have him an active opponent of polygamy. If I am right he perjured himself. Of course I might resolve my concern some day. I got a book entitled Mormonism Shadow or Reality? which uses this letter to prove sexuality in Joseph's plural marriages.

Sincerely,

Dale

There are stories and then there are stories ~ but they are incomplete and there is no way to question the writer of those stories to get all the specifics.

If you have ever been in court, you will see that a statement by a witness can be totally discounted (even though on paper it sounded totally perfect) because the story didn't contain all of the facts. It contained only what the witness wanted the people to hear. There are not only two sides to every story (which isn't heard in any of the stories by themselves) but there is also the facts which maybe only one person is in possession of, besides God.

Joseph Smith would be that person, in his case.

The record documents and stories you have are one dimensional. Like reading the Bible. If you have ever heard a story or teaching or even prophecy from the Bible without the background information, the story will be related to what you know, and your surrounding circumstances. But when you start an indepth study of the times, customs, religions, oppositional religions teachings, etc, and then add to that the meaning of words, and uses ~ you can come away with an entirely different understanding of what was going on in that same story.

What was going on back then? What was God actually telling JS which never was written, only talked about, or gossipped through the grapevine until it wasn't anything near the truth anymore?

What was the intent of the writers of thos stories? Were they just disgruntled people? Did they expect something more, and when they didn't get it, made something up to hurt JS like they felt they were hurt?

There is so much you and I can't know by just reading those stories and documents... that it is foolishness to think one knows JS's story without having lived it themselves.

That goes for the people who wrote those documents, or interpretted them. Can they, without actually walking in the shoes of those people, feeling their feelings, knowing their thoughts, and personalities and weaknesses, really know anything about what is the WHOLE TRUTH?

I don't think so. I have seen our own country's story has changed according to political desires and I don't think that anyone who is seeking TRUTH will settle for any amount of paperwork to tell the WHOLE TRUTH when it comes to the matter and works of JS.

It must be sought through revelation from God.

[pushka]

As in all things....History is written by the victorious!'

[Dale]

Hi,

Amillia I am happy with not knowing all the answers. I just know to question what I read. Everybody slants history to favor their point of view. Certainly I don't want to reject any fact about Joseph Smith Jr. & polygamy. I just want to avoid fiction.

The date for Almira's marriage to Joseph Smith Jr. was about April 2-22 1843. Hyrum Smith was mentioned in his account. Other accounts have Hyrum Smith not aware of the practice accept by rumors & was acting as an anti-polygamist in May of 1843. Try as I might I can't figure away out of my difficulties with that source. He's also a key Fanny Alger witness which makes him very important.

Another polygamy source is Mosiah Hancock's memoirs. He claimed his father had been involved in the marriage of Fanny Alger & Joseph Smith Jr. A long time ago I had an LDS book on prophecy. It had a purported prophecy that supposedly had origins with Joseph Smith Jr. Basically the story goes that Mosiah had expressed a willingness to follow Joseph Smith 3rd(Joseph's son if he became prophet. The response from Levi Hancock upon hearing Mosiah's feelings was that Mosiah shouldn't do it. Joseph Smith Jr. had learned his son would become a false prophet & lead many people astray. I feel he made up a story to slander Joseph Smith 3rd. He could also have made up polygamy stories to impress people. I am not sure it's a reliable source Todd Comptom thought in his book.

To me if something happened with the Fanny Alger episode then so be it. I think a lot of it is exaggerated myself.

Ann Eliza Webb Young claimed Fanny Alger was pregnant with Joseph's child. Speculations of a miscarriage does exist because babies born leave records. I heard from Jim Reeves a Fundemental RLDS that she was about two years old when this event occured. Her father must have been the source, or other rumor mongerors. If she wasn't pregnant then it's just a false story. It's speculation she had lost the child before birth. There's no evidence of a birth.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Dale@Apr 23 2005, 10:07 PM

Hi,

Amillia I am happy with not knowing all the answers. I just know to question what I read. Everybody slants history to favor their point of view. Certainly I don't want to reject any fact about Joseph Smith Jr. & polygamy. I just want to avoid fiction.

The date for Almira's marriage to Joseph Smith Jr. was about April 2-22 1843. Hyrum Smith was mentioned in his account. Other accounts have Hyrum Smith not aware of the practice accept by rumors & was acting as an anti-polygamist in May of 1843. Try as I might I can't figure away out of my difficulties with that source. He's also a key Fanny Alger witness which makes him very important.

Another polygamy source is Mosiah Hancock's memoirs. He claimed his father had been involved in the marriage of Fanny Alger & Joseph Smith Jr. A long time ago I had an LDS book on prophecy. It had a purported prophecy that supposedly had origins with Joseph Smith Jr. Basically the story goes that Mosiah had expressed a willingness to follow Joseph Smith 3rd(Joseph's son if he became prophet. The response from Levi Hancock upon hearing Mosiah's feelings was that Mosiah shouldn't do it. Joseph Smith Jr. had learned his son would become a false prophet & lead many people astray. I feel he made up a story to slander Joseph Smith 3rd. He could also have made up polygamy stories to impress people. I am not sure it's a reliable source Todd Comptom thought in his book.

To me if something happened with the Fanny Alger episode then so be it. I think a lot of it is exaggerated myself.

Ann Eliza Webb Young claimed Fanny Alger was pregnant with Joseph's child. Speculations of a miscarriage does exist because babies born leave records. I heard from Jim Reeves a Fundemental RLDS that she was about two years old when this event occured. Her father must have been the source, or other rumor mongerors. If she wasn't pregnant then it's just a false story. It's speculation she had lost the child before birth. There's no evidence of a birth.

Sincerely,

Dale

"It is a mass of confusion" is a phrase that comes to mind. I see no value in speculation, and no value in slander. I guess that is why I no longer delve into these things.

Also, having receved my own witness of JS's righteousnesss, from a much higher source than anything in writing left behind by the saints back then, I really have no need to read accounts from mere mortals.

[Dale]

Hi,

Amilla I like what somebody at FAIR said in a talk. I can't remember the name of the guy but he said something profound. It went something like "I don't have a testimony of the history of the church. Rather I have a testimony of Jesus Christ." I tend to join in on these polygamy discussions because I like helping people with the issues about church history.

Sincerely,

Dale