Disfellowshiping: Why the Terror?

by Cold Steel 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Resistance is Futile: I wasn't asking specifically about who he married. I was asking about the claims that he had sex with teenage girls in his community while he was married to his first wife Emma. Do you feel that the claims that he had sex with Fanny Alger (age 16), and Marinda Johnson (age 16) are credible?

    No, I do not. Many of those claims came from sensationalist sources after the saints arrived in Utah.

    According to the Mormon Church how many official wives did Joseph Smith take? You said there is no evidence he had sex with his 15 year old bride Helen Kimball; was this true of his other wives? What I'm asking is, were all his other marriages asexual? Did he publicly deny the practice of polygamy [while] secretly taking multiple wives? Why would he feel the need to cover-up what he was doing?

    No, it was not true of his other wives. That said, there were many women he was sealed to simply so they would be under his care and protection. Some of our critics howl because Joseph married Elder Orson Hyde's wife whilst he was on his mission to exercise the keys or restoring Judah to the land of its inheritance. He was gone a considerable time, yet when he returned, his wife was sealed back to him and about nine or ten months later they had a child. It was not Joseph's.

    How many wives did Joseph have? That's difficult to say. Some were sealed to him after his death, but for those known to have been sealed to him during his life, for whatever reason, the most accurate number I've come up with is...29.

    As for your other questions, the answers are yes, he publicly denied the practice of plural marriage. Why did he feel the need to cover it up? Because the Lord told him not to reveal the doctrine. In the past, God had given patriarchs their wives, and their only sins were in taking wives not given to them, especially to cement political relationships with their heathen neighbors. Since joseph Smith was called to oversee the restoration of the ancient church and Kingdom of God, or, as Peter said, "the restoration of all things," then part of that restoration was bringing back that practice. No one was happy with the commandment, especially Hyrum and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, yet they lived it. Eventually, the Lord let the practice come to an end, primarily because of the effects it would have on missionary efforts and looming federal hostility.

    After decades of the saints stubbornly supporting the doctrine they were convinced was from God, the Lord suddenly said, Enough! And Wilford Woodruff, the president of the church, told the saints:

    The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed.

    I suspect that if Joseph Smith were to have been up front about this doctrine, that the people of his day would reacted harshly. Short answer: for the same reason Abraham and Sarah were less than honest about their relationship. (And that, too, was the Lord's idea).

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos
    Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn’t fret over the spiritual ramifications of being disfellowshiped. And if they lose loved ones who have died whilst disfellowshiped, they shouldn’t lose hope of ever seeing them again.

    I see. I missed your point. You were speaking from a spiritual perspective, but I was approaching it from a secular perspective since I'm no longer religious. You probably have a good point for anyone who has left the JWs and still believes in God. But in most cases, I think those ones already realize that, since the org. doesn't have the truth, a disfellowshipping couldn't possibly affect their relationship with God. Sadly, they still have to suffer anyway because they are getting shunned by family and friends.

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    It seems to me at least one poster in this thread has broken the rule on prosthelytising. However, given the presense of two Mormons in this thread and since the thread's been hijacked anyway I thought I'd cut and paste a little ditty from Christopher Hitchens wrt Mormonism. One point he doesn't make clearly in this dissertation, one Richard Dawkins likes to point out, is the Book of Mormon is clearly a fake. It was without argument from anyone written in the 19th century yet uses 15th century English throughout .. eg "And it came to pass" and "verily, I say onto you" ... that's not the way people talked in the 19th century, not even in Utah. Apologies in advance to the OP and to JL for taking up so much bandwidth, but this says it far more clearly and eloquently than I ever could.

    In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers, the previously mentioned George Miller who repeatedly predicted the end of the world, and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history.

    A vanished and vanquished Indian civilization had bequeathed a considerable number of burial mounds, which when randomly and amateurishly desecrated were found to contain not merely bones but also quite advanced artifacts of stone, copper, and beaten silver. There were eight of these sites within twelve miles of the underperforming farm which the Smith family called home. There were two equally stupid schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in such matters: the first were the gold-diggers and treasure-diviners who brought their magic sticks and crystals and stuffed toads to bear in the search for lucre, and the second those who hoped to find the resting place of a lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups, and to unite cupidity with half-baked anthropology.

    The actual story of the imposture is almost embarrassing to read, and almost embarrassingly easy to uncover. (It has been best told by Dr. Fawn Brodie, whose 1945 book No Man Knows My History was a good-faith attempt by a professional historian to put the kindest possible interpretation on the relevant "events.") In brief, Joseph Smith announced that he had been visited (three times, as is customary) by an angel named Moroni. The said angel informed him of a book, "written upon gold plates," which explained the origins of those living on the North American continent as well as the truths of the gospel. There were, further, two magic stones, set in the twin breast- plates Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament, that would enable Smith himself to translate the aforesaid book. After many wrestlings, he brought this buried apparatus home with him on September 21, 1827, about eighteen months after his conviction for fraud. He then set about producing a translation.

    The resulting "books" turned out to be a record set down by ancient prophets, beginning with Nephi, son of Lephi, who had fled Jerusalem in approximately 600 BC and come to America. Many battles, curses, and afflictions accompanied their subsequent wanderings and those of their numerous progeny. How did the books turn out to be this way? Smith refused to show the golden plates to anybody, claiming that for other eyes to view them would mean death. But he encountered a problem that will be familiar to students of Islam. He was extremely glib and fluent as a debater and story-weaver, as many accounts attest. But he was illiterate, at least in the sense that while he could read a little, he could not write. A scribe was therefore necessary to take his inspired dictation. This scribe was at first his wife Emma and then, when more hands were necessary, a luckless neighbor named Martin Harris. Hearing Smith cite the words of Isaiah 29, verses 11-12, concerning the repeated injunction to "Read," Harris mortgaged his farm to help in the task and moved in with the Smiths. He sat on one side of a blanket hung across the kitchen, and Smith sat on the other with his translation stones, intoning through the blanket. As if to make this an even happier scene, Harris was warned that if he tried to glimpse the plates, or look at the prophet, he would be struck dead.

    Mrs. Harris was having none of this, and was already furious with the fecklessness of her husband. She stole the first hundred and sixteen pages and challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could. (Determined women like this appear far too seldom in the history of religion.) After a very bad few weeks, the ingenious Smith countered with another revelation. He could not replicate the original, which might be in the devil's hands by now and open to a "satanic verses" interpretation. But the all-foreseeing Lord had meanwhile furnished some smaller plates, indeed the very plates of Nephi, which told a fairly similar tale. With infinite labor, the translation was resumed, with new scriveners behind the blanket as occasion demanded, and when it was completed all the original golden plates were transported to heaven, where apparently they remain to this day. Mormon partisans sometimes say, as do Muslims, that this cannot have been fraudulent because the work of deception would have been too much for one poor and illiterate man. They have on their side two useful points: if Muhammad was ever convicted in public of fraud and attempted necromancy we have no record of the fact, and Arabic is a language that is somewhat opaque even to the fairly fluent outsider. However, we know the Koran to be made up in part of earlier books and stories, and in the case of Smith it is likewise a simple if tedious task to discover that twenty-five thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken directly from the Old Testament. These words can mainly be found in the chapters of Isaiah available in Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews: The Ten Tribes of Israel in America. This then popular work by a pious loony, claiming that the American Indians originated in the Middle East, seems to have started the other Smith on his gold-digging in the first place. A further two thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken from the New Testament. Of the three hundred and fifty "names" in the book, more than one hundred come straight from the Bible and a hundred more are as near stolen as makes no difference. (The great Mark Twain famously referred to it as "chloroform in print," but I accuse him of hitting too soft a target, since the book does actually contain "The Book of Ether.") The words "and it came to pass" can be found at least two thousand times, which does admittedly have a soporific effect. Quite recent scholarship has exposed every single other Mormon "document" as at best a scrawny compromise and at worst a pitiful fake, as Dr. Brodie was obliged to notice when she reissued and updated her remarkable book in 1973.

    Like Muhammad, Smith could produce divine revelations at short notice and often simply to suit himself (especially, and like Muhammad, when he wanted a new girl and wished to take her as another wife). As a result, he overreached himself and came to a violent end, having meanwhile excommunicated almost all the poor men who had been his first disciples and who had been browbeaten into taking his dictation. Still, this story raises some very absorbing questions, concerning what happens when a plain racket turns into a serious religion before our eyes.

  • Laika
    Laika

    TD has this right based on my experience, it is confusing, when I 'came out' as apostate to my parents they reported me to the elders, but they reported me to the elders in their congregation, which is not my most recent congregation, I thought I was going to get disfellowshipped after this but nothing happened because I believe those elders are not allowed to call me to a judicial committee.

    I suppose those elders could then have reported me to the elders in my local congregation but that doesn't seem to have happened so far as I've not heard from them in over a month.

    I guess I have escaped disfellowshipping on a technicality, I think this is something fading apostates should use to their advantage if possible.

  • TD
    TD

    Laika,

    Some people have been disfellowshipped by elders they didn't know from congregations they never attended, including some fairly high profile individuals like the late Barbara Grizzuti Harrison.

    However, the idea that being one of Jehovah's Witnesses involves affliation with some other organization than the local congregation (Which is implicit when this happens) challenges the legal barrier that exists when a church is organized as a confederation of autonomous congregations. The JW parent organizations (presumabely) don't really want this to happen very often. They really don't want to be in the position of a hierarchical church like the Catholic faith where an entire diocese is legally liable when a single priest screws up.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit