"Thirst for my blood..."

[Rob4Hope]

OK,...I've been gone a while, but when I was out for a walk a few days ago and having a relaxing thought, the question came to mind: "How many things have I been taught that are totally false?" A big one jumped to mind.

"When you enlist to serve the Lord Jesus Christ you leave neutral ground forever, and you can never get back to it. If you leave, it will only be at the instigation of the evil one, and you will come to hate me and this church, and even thirst for my blood".

This quote, though perhaps not absolutely accurate (this is how I remember it) came from the Truman Madsen tapes attributed to Joseph Smith. I remember listening those tapes with anticipation, even trembling with excitement. Truman's voice was sooooo soothing, his words and delivery soooo convincing. MAN,..I KNEW JS WAS A PROPHET!!!!

Fast forwward some 20 years, and at this point I am convinced JS was one hell of a good fraud.

But alas?....does that mean I have left the church because of the "evil one"? And do I now thirst for JS blood?

What a load of crap.

I think JS should be in jail,...and perhaps get some medication or something,...but I'm not someone who "thirsts for blood".

Looks like in this prophecy, JS (and Truman) got it wrong again. It amazes me how fear is used in such a way to prevent true inquiry. Its used everywhere and is soooo effective. Realizing this, its just another reason I'm convinced TSCC is a cult.

[Hagoth]

The necessity for black-and-white thinking was set up from the very beginning wasn't it?

[Palerider]

"When you enlist to serve the Lord Jesus Christ you leave neutral ground forever, and you can never get back to it. If you leave, it will only be at the instigation of the evil one, and you will come to hate me and this church, and even thirst for my blood".

So here's an interesting observation about the above and everything that is INFERRED by the statement..

1. Previous to encountering the church you can't possibly have already enlisted to serve the Lord. That only happens through Joseph Smith.

2. By inferrence, leaving the service of the Savior (church) is a betrayal of Joseph Smith since they are one and the same. Thus you will desire the blood of Joseph Smith. Sorry.....big nonsequitur.

3. Leaving Joseph Smith is NOT a betrayal of the Savior. But Joseph has to make them equivalent and set the con up that way in order to inflict the maximum psychological coercion. Many people have left the church and gone on to happy, productive Christian lives. And as Robforhope has mentioned not cared one way or another whether Joseph or his successors lived or died.

4. The only reason one can leave the church/Joseph is because they are under the influence of SATAN!!! It is impossible to have a legitimate and honorable difference of opinion with church leadership. Leadership never do anything wrong. They never hide history. They always tell the whole and complete truth. They aren't in it for the money. Members who disagree are ALWAYS WRONG.

[slavereeno]

This quote, though perhaps not absolutely accurate (this is how I remember it) came from the Truman Madsen tapes attributed to Joseph Smith. I remember listening those tapes with anticipation, even trembling with excitement. Truman's voice was sooooo soothing, his words and delivery soooo convincing. MAN,..I KNEW JS WAS A PROPHET!!!!

I have always struggled with a JS testimony. The whole thing bugged me from as far back as my teens at least. After my mission, in my 20s I listened to the Truman Madsen JS tapes in the hopes I would get the feels about the prophet and could claim I had a testimony of JS specifically. The tapes did nothing for me. In fact I was really turned off by the statements about JS being some kind of proxy judge for our dispensation, being inserted between myself and Christ.

That being said, to your original question. I don't want any harm to come to any church leader, but I would love to see the institutional church fail.

[blazerb]

I am not interested in anyone's blood. I think I can honestly say that I don't hate any church leaders, but some of them annoy me. I'm not sure if I hope for the church to fail or not. I really miss the wonderful community I grew up in. The current church does not have that. I wish we could get the spirit back without the bogus teachings. That is probably not possible, I know.

[Brent]

In the LDS world there is "Us" and "Them" and we have become "Them".

[moksha]

I think the Church sets itself up to fail when it frames itself as being either all true or all false. When the curtain is pulled aside members are left to conclude that it is all false. Much better to take a comparative advantage approach where advocates could say, "Look at all the good things we do". Of course, that would be contingent upon actually doing good things, but that could lead to a new goal of striving to do those good things. That is a message of hope.

[deacon blues]

I checked for that quote online, and apparently it first appears as a second hand account by Daniel Tyler in the Aug. 15,1892 "Juvenile Instructor." Wilford Woodruff and others give an account of Joseph saying something like this during the Kirtland Banking crisis, so it's likely that Joseph said something similar, but the fiery language of this quote, coming from the time immediately following the Manifesto, was picked up and used in many talks and lessons. I heard it several times in the mission field. It should be obvious to any thinking TBM, especially Truman Madsen, that many of those who left the Church did not fit Joseph's characterization. David Whitmer, William McLellin, John Corrill, and many others, left the Church, lived out their lives, and were able to refrain from "thirsting after" Joseph's blood.
The dramatic quote has sadly been used many times to castigate and rebuke people who leave the Church, and paint them all with the same harsh brush of condemnation as people like John C. Bennett. Actually, even Bennett seems to have had a successful career after coming out against Joseph Smith. Joseph liked to stir people up with talks that demonstrate his black and white thinking, as have many of his successors.

[Rob4Hope]

I checked for that quote online, and apparently it first appears as a second hand account by Daniel Tyler in the Aug. 15,1892 "Juvenile Instructor." Wilford Woodruff and others give an account of Joseph saying something like this during the Kirtland Banking crisis, so it's likely that Joseph said something similar, but the fiery language of this quote, coming from the time immediately following the Manifesto, was picked up and used in many talks and lessons. I heard it several times in the mission field. It should be obvious to any thinking TBM, especially Truman Madsen, that many of those who left the Church did not fit Joseph's characterization. David Whitmer, William McLellin, John Corrill, and many others, left the Church, lived out their lives, and were able to refrain from "thirsting after" Joseph's blood.
The dramatic quote has sadly been used many times to castigate and rebuke people who leave the Church, and paint them all with the same harsh brush of condemnation as people like John C. Bennett. Actually, even Bennett seems to have had a successful career after coming out against Joseph Smith. Joseph liked to stir people up with talks that demonstrate his black and white thinking, as have many of his successors.

I remember reading something from BH Roberts where he said the BoM was actually theologically shallow. It certainly didn't have anything about priesthood being essential for salvations,...etc. Anyway,...when I think of black & white reasoning as you mentioned, it also tells me that JS had a level of 'shallow thinking'.

I've learned from experience that nuance is essential to understand things. But this type of though, do you think JS did it to keep people in a shallow thinking place (encouraging it), or was he himself stuck there? Other ideas?

[Arcturus]

The necessity for black-and-white thinking was set up from the very beginning wasn't it?

Was it? I've been on a kick listening to Greg Prince interviews and it seems like there was a switch to fundamentalism after David O. McKay, mainly with Joseph Fielding Smith sparking hard core fundamentalism, and his son-in-law Bruce R. carrying on the legacy.

There appears to be fundamentalism from the beginning with Joseph and Brigham, but maybe fundamentalism attenuated starting with John Taylor and on through the McKay years? Certainly some of the top leaders were uneasy with Brigham's tyranny in the Utah frontier and maybe tried to tame it down. I see quotes like this from John Taylor (granted, JS and BY have similar quotes) and it makes me wish this was the ideal in the current church:

“We are open to truth of every kind, no matter whence it comes, where it originates, or who believes in it. A man in search of the truth has no particular system to sustain, no particular dogma to defend, or theory to uphold.”

According to Prince, David O. had an idea of a "big tent" Mormonism and thought the protection of agency and belief was critical, and he went out of his way to shield some members of the church from excommunication. That said, whenever someone appeared to be openly critical against Joseph Smith (i.e., his niece) he was on board with punitive action with their membership.

[Arcturus]

I remember reading something from BH Roberts where he said the BoM was actually theologically shallow. It certainly didn't have anything about priesthood being essential for salvations,...etc. Anyway,...when I think of black & white reasoning as you mentioned, it also tells me that JS had a level of 'shallow thinking'.

I've learned from experience that nuance is essential to understand things. But this type of though, do you think JS did it to keep people in a shallow thinking place (encouraging it), or was he himself stuck there? Other ideas?

That's an interesting question. If JS was a fraud/aspiring cult leader, then keeping people in a shallow place is consistent with how individuals seek control over others. We know he really had no original take on anything theological - check out the Richard Behrens 2006 article in the Whitmer Historical Assoc Journal for all the Dartmouth theology speculation that somehow found its way into Mormonism...

"When you enlist to serve the Lord Jesus Christ you leave neutral ground forever, and you can never get back to it. If you leave, it will only be at the instigation of the evil one, and you will come to hate me and this church, and even thirst for my blood."

This reeks of control-seeking intention. I don't remember where I heard it, but a good way to identify an unhealthy organization (i.e., a cult) is to see how the organization treats its departing members in contrast to its current members.

[alas]

I checked for that quote online, and apparently it first appears as a second hand account by Daniel Tyler in the Aug. 15,1892 "Juvenile Instructor." Wilford Woodruff and others give an account of Joseph saying something like this during the Kirtland Banking crisis, so it's likely that Joseph said something similar, but the fiery language of this quote, coming from the time immediately following the Manifesto, was picked up and used in many talks and lessons. I heard it several times in the mission field. It should be obvious to any thinking TBM, especially Truman Madsen, that many of those who left the Church did not fit Joseph's characterization. David Whitmer, William McLellin, John Corrill, and many others, left the Church, lived out their lives, and were able to refrain from "thirsting after" Joseph's blood.
The dramatic quote has sadly been used many times to castigate and rebuke people who leave the Church, and paint them all with the same harsh brush of condemnation as people like John C. Bennett. Actually, even Bennett seems to have had a successful career after coming out against Joseph Smith. Joseph liked to stir people up with talks that demonstrate his black and white thinking, as have many of his successors.

I remember reading something from BH Roberts where he said the BoM was actually theologically shallow. It certainly didn't have anything about priesthood being essential for salvations,...etc. Anyway,...when I think of black & white reasoning as you mentioned, it also tells me that JS had a level of 'shallow thinking'.

I've learned from experience that nuance is essential to understand things. But this type of though, do you think JS did it to keep people in a shallow thinking place (encouraging it), or was he himself stuck there? Other ideas?

My take on Joseph was that he was intrigued with new idea and collected them like an insect collection, hundreds and hundreds of new idea from all over. But since he was clogging up his brain with all these fun new ideas, he didn’t stop to analyze any of them, sort them, or see how they fit in his over all world view. Sort like like some people who think they are intellectuals and buy lots of book knowing they will gain wisdom by reading all these books, but then never crack the books open. But they are so excited to see a new book out. So, his brain latched onto all kinds of new and exciting ideas, but he never took the time to form all these ideas into his view of things. So, his brain was like a jig saw puzzle with fragmented ideas. Nothing going much beyond the surface, but a gazillion ideas. For example, supposedly he saw God the Father and the son, but years later somebody else wrote Jesus the Christ and actually defined them as two separate people both with bodies. Until Talmage wrote that all down, Mormon doctrine was kind of vague on the Godhead, was it like the trinity or not. Talmage answered questions that should have been obvious to Joseph, but he never sorted out his jigsaw puzzle.

So his doctrine ended up an inch deep and a mile wide.

[Palerider]

My take on Joseph was that he was intrigued with new idea and collected them like an insect collection, hundreds and hundreds of new idea from all over. But since he was clogging up his brain with all these fun new ideas, he didn’t stop to analyze any of them, sort them, or see how they fit in his over all world view. Sort like like some people who think they are intellectuals and buy lots of book knowing they will gain wisdom by reading all these books, but then never crack the books open. But they are so excited to see a new book out. So, his brain latched onto all kinds of new and exciting ideas, but he never took the time to form all these ideas into his view of things. So, his brain was like a jig saw puzzle with fragmented ideas. Nothing going much beyond the surface, but a gazillion ideas. For example, supposedly he saw God the Father and the son, but years later somebody else wrote Jesus the Christ and actually defined them as two separate people both with bodies. Until Talmage wrote that all down, Mormon doctrine was kind of vague on the Godhead, was it like the trinity or not. Talmage answered questions that should have been obvious to Joseph, but he never sorted out his jigsaw puzzle.

So his doctrine ended up an inch deep and a mile wide.

This....perhaps.

But part of proclaiming oneself as bigger than Moses and able to produce continuing revelation, is the "wow" factor that people expect. And Joseph fed those expectations with promises of new and wonderful revelations and powerful blessings being poured out upon his followers.

But eventually one has to deliver on those promises. Which left Joseph scrambling for new and different doctrines and truths that would make his followers happy and impressed. So he made a mad search for sugary doctrines that would feed the cravings of his congregation while allowing him to attend to his own appetites.

He tried to stitch together doctrines that on their face seemed very plausible but when looked at in depth quickly ran into problems. Eternal families for example. "My parents are divorced and now both parents and their new spouses have temple recommends. Which set of parents do I belong to in Eternity?"

The best current leadership can do is tell members that everything will work out fine.

It's nice to know that children under eight need no baptism and get a one way ticket to the Celestial kingdom but how fair is that compared to someone who never heard of the church and struggled all their lives to know what was right but still will be judged according to their knowledge? They would have been better off to have died in infancy.

I've read several times in church apologetics that God at times has commanded his people to have multiple wives in order to raise up seed. But the only place this is found is in the church's "new revelation". If anything the Biblical scriptures lean much more towards monogamy and there is nowhere that a man is commanded to take multiple wives except in the most extreme cases where his relative (brother) has died and his widow needs care.

The church maintains the commandment of plural marriage as a Biblical given but the logic becomes circular when one observes that Joseph or "scripture" brought forth by him is the only "authoritative" verification to support that premise.

Joseph wanted to appear "deep" while not having the time to become such. He was under pressure to produce. You get what you pay for.

[Reuben]

Joseph wanted to appear "deep" while not having the time to become such. He was under pressure to produce. You get what you pay for.

Here's how I think the doctrine developed.

Joseph started by creating a tale about ancient Israeli-Americans, their buried treasure, and Jesus. Imagine it as a statue of a Native American wearing a chieftain's headdress and farmer's overalls. Also, one of its arms ends in a foot, and it has an all-seeing eye on its forehead. Weird but compelling. It takes talent to make something like that, enough that some people assume the weirdness means something deep. Maybe it does.

But the statue is performance art, never finished. People come from miles around to watch Joseph work on it. A few pitch in. He has to one-up them. Maybe someone adds a walking stick. He responds by making the farmer a five-legged centaur. It takes a lot of clay, stone, rebar and duct tape. When Joseph finally kicks the bucket, his life's work is part human, part horse and part squid, has three exposed penises, and somehow is still wearing a chieftain's headdress and farmer's overalls.

It's noisy to look at, impossible and offensive, and there are people who worship it.

The worshippers of the human-horse-squid end up having to pack it up and leave. At this point, it ceases to be performance art entirely. They put it on display in Salt Lake City. Generations of leaders, theologians and lay members slowly realize what is obvious to outsiders, and make whatever changes they can agree on to make this thing at the center of their lives less impossible and less offensive.

Now most of the tentacles are gone. It's still a centaur, but with four legs instead of five. One of its arms still ends in a foot. It's somehow still wearing a chieftain's headdress and farmer's overalls. There's still an exposed penis, on the end of its walking stick, which can't be removed because it's become load-bearing. Most of the results of Joseph's talent and desperation have been hacked off and sanded down, but there are still quite a few of his ideas on display.

And that's where Mormon doctrine came from.

[alas]

Reuben, Hmmmm, I see that I continue to give Joseph too much credit for some semblance of sanity. I was just thinking he was brilliant, loved ideas but was sort of supper ADHD, and couldn’t think on one thought long enough to make it coherent. But your description seems to explain better than mine does.

[Reuben]

Reuben, Hmmmm, I see that I continue to give Joseph too much credit for some semblance of sanity. I was just thinking he was brilliant, loved ideas but was sort of supper ADHD, and couldn’t think on one thought long enough to make it coherent. But your description seems to explain better than mine does.

You might be giving him the right amount of credit. Personally, I think he was less constrained by reality than most people - which combined with his other traits made him a very talented bullshitter - but was probably sane.

There are a lot of people, space, and time between him and us. The kind of filtering that's happened makes him really hard to pin down. Pretty much every characterization that loosely fits the known facts has to be plausible.

[Palerider]

And that's where Mormon doctrine came from.

Joseph made numerous mentions of blessings and power with which the church would be endowed from on high. He had a bit of a plan worked out in conjunction with Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery and others. See D&C:

"10 That they themselves may be prepared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands.

11 And this cannot be brought to pass until mine elders are endowed with power from on high.

12 For behold, I have prepared a great endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them, inasmuch as they are faithful and continue in humility before me."

Joseph stated this sort of thing a number of times in the D&C so we know he was trying to synthesize something that would appear deep enough for his followers to accept, but it was taking him time to put it together. Once you state something like this people begin to expect it and soon.

What he didn't have time to do (as usual) was to make certain all of his doctrines fit together perfectly. Thus the "noise" or incongruity that you have so aptly described.

But he wasn't chasing doctrine or theology willy nilly. He had a (albeit somewhat loose) plan for a community or kingdom in mind. One where he would be top dog and that would require the unquestioning allegiance of his followers. One that would require a loyalty test that would appear in the guise of a "deep" covenant.

The creation of the doctrines led only towards this end goal: Power to Joseph.

Whether they were necessitated by challenges to his position or were self spawned to further his goals, always they lead to consolidating his power.

Initially the want of money may have driven Joseph's revelations but as HE EVOLVED, the need for power became Joseph's revelation engine.

[alas]

And that's where Mormon doctrine came from.

Joseph made numerous mentions of blessings and power with which the church would be endowed from on high. He had a bit of a plan worked out in conjunction with Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery and others. See D&C:

"10 That they themselves may be prepared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands.

11 And this cannot be brought to pass until mine elders are endowed with power from on high.

12 For behold, I have prepared a great endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them, inasmuch as they are faithful and continue in humility before me."

Joseph stated this sort of thing a number of times in the D&C so we know he was trying to synthesize something that would appear deep enough for his followers to accept, but it was taking him time to put it together. Once you state something like this people begin to expect it and soon.

What he didn't have time to do (as usual) was to make certain all of his doctrines fit together perfectly. Thus the "noise" or incongruity that you have so aptly described.

But he wasn't chasing doctrine or theology willy nilly. He had a (albeit somewhat loose) plan for a community or kingdom in mind. One where he would be top dog and that would require the unquestioning allegiance of his followers. One that would require a loyalty test that would appear in the guise of a "deep" covenant.

The creation of the doctrines led only towards this end goal: Power to Joseph.

Whether they were necessitated by challenges to his position or were self spawned to further his goals, always they lead to consolidating his power.

Initially the want of money may have driven Joseph's revelations but as HE EVOLVED, the need for power became Joseph's revelation engine.

Not sure it is much of an evolution from “give me money for my pretended ability to find treasure” to “give me money because I have this mportant scripture” to “give me power, so I can make you give me money.” But hey, if you see evolution in that

But seriously, I see both his extreme need to have people to admire him, his desire to have power over other people, and his desire for easy money, and a love of new fangled ideas (that was a positive trait if it had stayed a search for knowledge and not become a tool to use to control people and get what he wanted.) all as pretty stable personality traits. Sure he evolved some in his method, from fooling people over hidden treasure to fooling people over hidden spiritual treasure (hidden spiritual treasure was easier to make people think you found) but I do see a genuine love of learning. Don’t forget, he pretty much taught himself a couple of languages and he seems to have read everything he could get his hands on, thus his wide knowledge of everything from Swedenborg to how to drug his followers and make them think a mushroom trip was seeing visions. I do give the con man credit for being brilliant.

Oh, PS. He also wanted power so that women would give him sex. So, that was something he didn’t seem to be doing early on when he just wanted easy money. Power does have other perks besides the ability to make people give you money, so yes, I guess you could say he devolved from just wanting easy money to wanting power. I do see wanting power as more evil than just wanting easy money. Which is why I am sort of kidding above, but only sort of. I think he evolved into a more evil jerk.

[Palerider]

Not sure it is much of an evolution from “give me money for my pretended ability to find treasure” to “give me money because I have this mportant scripture” to “give me power, so I can make you give me money.” But hey, if you see evolution in that

But seriously, I see both his extreme need to have people to admire him, his desire to have power over other people, and his desire for easy money, and a love of new fangled ideas (that was a positive trait if it had stayed a search for knowledge and not become a tool to use to control people and get what he wanted.) all as pretty stable personality traits. Sure he evolved some in his method, from fooling people over hidden treasure to fooling people over hidden spiritual treasure (hidden spiritual treasure was easier to make people think you found) but I do see a genuine love of learning. Don’t forget, he pretty much taught himself a couple of languages and he seems to have read everything he could get his hands on, thus his wide knowledge of everything from Swedenborg to how to drug his followers and make them think a mushroom trip was seeing visions. I do give the con man credit for being brilliant.

Oh, PS. He also wanted power so that women would give him sex. So, that was something he didn’t seem to be doing early on when he just wanted easy money. Power does have other perks besides the ability to make people give you money, so yes, I guess you could say he devolved from just wanting easy money to wanting power. I do see wanting power as more evil than just wanting easy money. Which is why I am sort of kidding above, but only sort of. I think he evolved into a more evil jerk.

Evolved in a similar sense that serial killers "evolve". Many start out being sadistic to others, then killing animals and then graduate to humans.

Not that Joseph was that malignant by any means but you get what I'm saying.

And I agree, he was driven to learn and explore new theory/doctrine, languages, etc. After all, having aquired a reputation as a gifted translator of languages it might help to actually know a little of one, other than english. But in my opinion he only gained cursory facility with doctrines or languages. He was too pressed by the demands of "running" the church and protecting his facade to do anything in great depth.

And I'm pretty sure I alluded to his penchant for women in my first post. Poor Emma I suppose.

[alas]

Not sure it is much of an evolution from “give me money for my pretended ability to find treasure” to “give me money because I have this mportant scripture” to “give me power, so I can make you give me money.” But hey, if you see evolution in that

But seriously, I see both his extreme need to have people to admire him, his desire to have power over other people, and his desire for easy money, and a love of new fangled ideas (that was a positive trait if it had stayed a search for knowledge and not become a tool to use to control people and get what he wanted.) all as pretty stable personality traits. Sure he evolved some in his method, from fooling people over hidden treasure to fooling people over hidden spiritual treasure (hidden spiritual treasure was easier to make people think you found) but I do see a genuine love of learning. Don’t forget, he pretty much taught himself a couple of languages and he seems to have read everything he could get his hands on, thus his wide knowledge of everything from Swedenborg to how to drug his followers and make them think a mushroom trip was seeing visions. I do give the con man credit for being brilliant.

Oh, PS. He also wanted power so that women would give him sex. So, that was something he didn’t seem to be doing early on when he just wanted easy money. Power does have other perks besides the ability to make people give you money, so yes, I guess you could say he devolved from just wanting easy money to wanting power. I do see wanting power as more evil than just wanting easy money. Which is why I am sort of kidding above, but only sort of. I think he evolved into a more evil jerk.

Evolved in a similar sense that serial killers "evolve". Many start out being sadistic to others, then killing animals and then graduate to humans.

Not that Joseph was that malignant by any means but you get what I'm saying.

And I agree, he was driven to learn and explore new theory/doctrine, languages, etc. After all, having aquired a reputation as a gifted translator of languages it might help to actually know a little of one, other than english. But in my opinion he only gained cursory facility with doctrines or languages. He was too pressed by the demands of "running" the church and protecting his facade to do anything in great depth.

And I'm pretty sure I alluded to his penchant for women in my first post. Poor Emma I suppose.

My point was kind of that evolving from wanting easy money from one form of sucker, to wanting power so that he could get easy money from a different kind of sucker isn’t much of a change. Pointing out that he really didn’t change all that much from his money digging days, just found that religious suckers were quicker suckers.

But I do understand your point that he seemed to get worse in the way and number of people he suckered. Money digging is honest compared to his using Masonic symbols to convince his followers they were part of an elite group who had a “get into Heaven Free” card.




But now, let’s look at his history with women. How did he treat Emma? Well first off all, he convinced her that eloping and getting married secretly against her family’s knowledge or permission was a good idea. Is that really so much different than convincing Elisa R Snow to “get married secretly” without her family’s knowledge or permission. The big difference was that it was not legal and intended to stay secret. But there are common threads that stayed in how he treated women. What was in their best interest was unimportant starting with Emma. The only important point was getting them to willingly hop in bed and using “secret marriage” as bait.