0 Votes
RE: some thoughts
For some reason I’m not impressed that the New Mormon History accused Brodie of not taking ’Smith’s religious claims seriously.’ The whole story of her book and the outcome of her research gives one good reasons not to take them seriously. I’m equally unimpressed with the wikipedia pseudo-citation about ‘mainstream historians.’ Who are they? What specifically do they object to? The charge of sensationalism without any substance doesn’t bother me or anyone else.
But moving on. Since you appear to be Mormon and insist most are not embarrassed by the 1826 incident I will leave it be. You may consider that statement, as it pertains to this conversation, officially retracted. Your continuing discussion about the Smith trial has now been rehashed quite a few times and nothing you have said seems to warrant revisiting the issue.
As for these other problems: Abraham 1:21-24,27 explains how black skin came to be a curse from god and how this curse disbarred those afflicted from holding priesthood. Furthermore, the Mormon church in its Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. 2, Ch. 47, p. 128 explains that the ‘Negro’ is a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, and that this curse resulted in them being ‘barred from holding that divine power.’ I won’t belabor the point, but will give you this little tidbit to further explain this topic. I feel silly, however, defending a point of Mormon doctrine, drawn from Mormon holy writ, to a Mormon. (If you’re not actually a Mormon, I retract that statement as well)
The issue of Joseph Smith’s many trysts is almost a moot point. You can consult the book In Sacred Lonelines: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. The best estimate is that he was involved with 33 women, but nobody really knows how many it was for sure. You may disagree with my use of the word ‘seduce’ and that’s fine as well. I think the information speaks sufficiently for itself.
I understand that you consider Brodie’s work in regards to the ‘hotel’ revelation to be ‘illegitimate.’ We can, however, just go to her source and check it out. She claims it can be found in the Mormon church’s Doctrines and Covenants_, Section 124. I suspect it’s there … and it is. I even used an official Mormon website to look it up. For those of you who may be reading and don’t know what "_Doctrine and Covenants":http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/contents is, it is the official Mormon compilation of revelations of god given to Joseph Smith. I hope this clears up my problematic allegations.
RE: some thoughts by Travis
The point that I was initially trying to make concerning the article was not the tenants of the LDS faith but rather the importance of the use of unbiased, peer viewed and respectable sources especially in the realm of history.
D. Michael Quinn, an excommunicated Mormon, wrote the New Mormon History. My use of his comment was to show that even fellow excommunicated Mormons discount Brodie’s historical writtings and that not everyone who write against LDS views are considered anti-Mormon.
Your “tidbit” is shameful and ill will as it provides libel claims and out of context statements to support premeditated conclusions.
Todd Compton, author of In Sacred Lonelines: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith mentions his struggle with those that use is book on the subject of plural marriage and take excerpts from his work to support false and slanderous claims against the LDS faith.
I too think it is silly that you are twisting Mormon doctrine, using Mormon holy writ to a Mormon. Your citation may have improved when citing Doctrine and Covenants, and Abraham but you have associated false claims to LDS canonized scripture. I am not interested on correcting false interpretations of LDS scripture, as it is open to anyone to read wholly through and ask God for understanding. I merely want to point out the importance and responsibility that everyone has to give an accurate and unbiased historical account as possible. What particularly disturbs me are both your negligence in this matter concerning your use of sources as well as websites, and your tendency to use appropriate sources out of context to meet predisposed conclusions.
I have no ill feelings but do become irritated when it becomes clear when that there is an underlying motive to pervert truth about religion, culture, people, and history. Your extra commentary on your beliefs of Joseph Smith was uncalled for and beside the point of Brandon’s article. I would like to leave this argument only and apologize to other readers if we are beginning to sound a bit belligerent and leave you with the last word.
RE: some thoughts by Brandon
it is the official Mormon compilation of revelations of god given to Joseph Smith
Not exactly, and I think you could have put a little more effort into your post to make it accurate and informative. If you want to explain what the Doctrine & Covenants is, how hard is it to link to the Explanatory Introduction? Or, assuming ignorance and not ill-intent was behind the slip-up, perhaps you should even read the intro to a book on which you’re professing to be able to sum-up in a sentence.
Just for clarification, the book is officially defined as "a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days." Also, concerning the number of them received through Joseph Smith: "Most of the revelations in this compilation were received through Joseph Smith, Jun., the first prophet and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Others were issued through some of his successors in the Presidency."
For those interested, I think it makes sense that JS would receive the vast majority of the revelations, seeing that he was the prophet called through whom the church would be restored. It’s comparable to the situation God faced when he selected Moses. Assuming the Bible gives an accurate ratio, compare the amount of doctrinal revelations given through Moses with his successor, Joshua.