Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
oliblish wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:24 pm
I think this quote from the Polygamy essay on lds.org sheds some light on this:
“I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life,” said Zina Huntington Jacobs, “for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman.”
Why would Zina think she would not be looked upon as an honorable woman after being sealed to Joseph Smith if it was a non-sexual sealing? Why would it need to be kept so secret?
Way too logical there. You have to stop thinking that way!
It's permissable to "feel" for her sacrifice that she was being asked to make for the church and the Kingdom. I "feel" that all those who obeyed Joseph will be glorified beyond measure. Remember, even if it is the wrong thing to do, just go ahead and do it and the Lord will bless you in the end. Can you feel that?
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."
"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."
This is one of the reasons I just stay clear of sexual and moral grievances as evidences of Joseph’s credibility.
I’ve learned to focus on evidences of fraud, logical inconsistencies, and the flawed epistemology. Not sure it’s more effective, but I just prefer it.
The church has created the narrative that church leaders are only the most holy of men, and it can definitely collapse a shelve if it is exposed that they are not, but if cornered, and given time, a TBM will often abandon that concept for the Givens apologetic of God calls “very flawed men called to do the work” and “God calls the weak”. This is my TBM friend’s go-to explain away, and it’s not as logically incoherent as we like to think. If Gods wanted to used a great sinner, even a sexual deviant, to do his work I suppose He could. Just as a person isn’t called as a prophet just because they are super righteous.
So my response to “well you just expect prophets to be perfect, I don’t”, is now “no, I expect prophets to be prophets”. There is more than enough other ammo to lean on in regards to Joseph just not doing or seeing what he said he did. Once you can show that Jospeh was willing to lie, be deceptive and even fraudulent, that’s some solid ground. Of course you can show that with how he hid and lied about polygamy, and that can be very effective. That was what collapsed my shelf. Reading Joseph’s letter to Sarah Ann Whitney came across to me as so deceptive and problematic that the dominos started to fall. But a lot of that was because I held Jospeh on a serious pedestal.
Edit: maybe I’m talking out of my ass here. For one a testimony is usually an emotional witness. Appealing to logic can work well with analytical types, but sadly I fear “you can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into”. I don’t fully believe that, but it is more difficult.
