21st century social conventions

[Emower]

Speaking as a religious person, I think it is good to minimize judgment to a bare minimum and exercise forgiveness whenever possible.

Good point. It is tempting to want to judge based on actions. But I would be miffed if somebody judged me for something I did and threw out everything I said after that. Life is a buffet I suppose. Mormonism is no different, despite what the bretheren would have you think.

[Jeffret]

The Book of Mormon is much more trinitarian than modern Mormonism. In modern Mormonism, trinitarianism is treated as practically one of the great heresies and clear evidence of the restoration of the gospel. The Church teaches that Joseph's First Vision is a clear refutation of trinitarianism, by which Joseph clearly knew that God the Father and Jesus are separate people. The biggest problem is that Joseph doesn't seem to have known that, at least not initially. Joseph's earliest accounts of the First Vision and his earliest teachings are more trinitarian. Now, much of this did happen in Joseph's lifetime as his own theology changed over time. The 1837 version of the BoM, upon which, the Church's current version is based, is less trinitarian. However, if you actually pay attention when you read it, it still has quite a bit of trinitarian aspects. It's Christology is notably out of line with modern Mormonism if you read what it says than read what it has to say based upon what the Church has taught you.

Interestingly, Joseph rarely relied on the Book of Mormon for his theology. He rarely cited it, citing the Bible much more often. He pretty much ignored its contents as he continued through life. The existence of the book was important, but the contents not so much. So, some of the Christology changes occurred while Joseph still lived, but in the modern church it has become complete. The BoM teaches a different Christ than the modern Church, but people don't pay enough attention to recognize the differences, because of course, they assume everything the Church says and does is correct.

[Jeffret]

I suppose I do feel in the same way we cannot toss the constitution because Thomas Jefferson had slaves, we cannot toss the church on account of Joseph maybe being a horn-dog. Fortunately enough, there are enough other problems that add up for me to take into consideration as well.

I'm definitely not saying we shouldn't toss the church. That's my solution and I'm quite satisfied with it.

Mostly, I'm saying there are other reasons to toss the church. Some people find Joseph's misdeeds the strongest reasons. Some find other reasons. To some degree, it is more common for men to be upset about Joseph's misdeeds and problems with church history and for women to be more upset about the church's current behavior. This isn't absolute by any means, but I've long observed tendencies those ways.

If the constitution still required us to accept slavery and a myriad other historical problems with the country, its leaders, and founders, then yeah, we probably ought to dump it. However, it has allowed our country to change and to improve. We've still got a long ways to go, but we have made some noticeable improvements.

[Reuben]

I suppose I do feel in the same way we cannot toss the constitution because Thomas Jefferson had slaves, we cannot toss the church on account of Joseph maybe being a horn-dog.

I'm not sure about "cannot." Plenty of people do.

Besides, I think Joseph Smith's character is of central importance. We have only his word that certain foundational events happened. His being a horn-dog perhaps isn't a deal-beaker, but IMO coercing women into marriage using guilt and vain promises of eternal life, and then lying about it to his wife and all of Nauvoo totally is. I don't even need to have a presentist mindset to think that such behavior calls into question everything he ever said and did.

I think past LDS church leaders understood this well, and that's where the policy of defending his character at all costs came from.

I don't have this issue with Thomas Jefferson because I can evaluate the constitution for myself, completely independent of his character. It's not an asymmetric information setup where I have to let his character stand in for the veracity of facts that were known only to him.

[2bizE]

Joseph Smith: Pedophile Prophet

[Emower]

I don't have this issue with Thomas Jefferson because I can evaluate the constitution for myself, completely independent of his character. It's not an asymmetric information setup where I have to let his character stand in for the veracity of facts that were known only to him.

Good point. But if we try to compare the constitution to the BOM, which we can do if we ignore the history aspect of both. Yes I know one is unimpeachably historical and the other is not, but just let go of the history associated with both. Both have principles to live by, and both have principles of government. We can then evaluate the BOM independent of Joseph Smith's character can we not?