What would it take for it to be called a "shootout"?

[Cow Poke]

Yet more evidence of our twin brothers from different mothers upbringing

I honestly believe that's what's wrong with so many kids today... Gramma provided a very useful "buffer" and "bridge" at the same time. On more than a few occasions, she probably saved me from being beaten within an inch of my life because of something stupid I did. (or something stupid YOU did for which I got blamed )

I remember her telling my mom, "Now, Ruth... let me talk to the boy..."

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps. But it wasn't part of the Christian culture was my point, which is the culture from which the Mormons sprang.

Can you think of other "commands" that the Lord had to "ease into" because He didn't want to "shock us", OC? I mean, prior to the Mormons springing out, and all.

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps. But it wasn't part of the Christian culture was my point, which is the culture from which the Mormons sprang.

So, can we refer to the "First Vision" as Mormon Spring? Like "Arab Spring"?

sorry, going to my room

[OtherCheek]

And, I think you left out the "smoking" part again... I can't imagine one wanting to "smoke" prior to death, who has never smoked before.

I musta missed a question or a quote that you provided. Was this recorded in Church History that Joseph smoked just prior to death in Carthage? And the "send a Baptist to hell" stuff...where does that come from?

The use of tobacco was thought to be medicinally beneficial during the 19th Century. But the WoW was not adopted as commandment until about 1933.

[OtherCheek]

Can you think of other "commands" that the Lord had to "ease into" because He didn't want to "shock us", OC? I mean, prior to the Mormons springing out, and all.

I cant think of anything that is comparable to the situation. You would have to find something habit forming, that has been inbred in the culture, and after thousands of years, the Lord comes out and says "You should not do this anymore."

The closest thing I can think of would be plural marriage. Example: If a man from Africa with plural wives want's to become a Baptist, what do you do? Do you forbid him baptism unless he first divorces all but one of his wives? Or do you allow THAT generation to continue but forbid it from going on with future generations?

For some reason the word "winked" comes to mind. So I did a search and found Acts 17:29-30

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

But that isn't really a true comparison either.

[Cow Poke]

I cant think of anything that is comparable to the situation.

OK, so broaden it ... ANY command from God that He had to "ease us into".

You would have to find something habit forming, that has been inbred in the culture, and after thousands of years, the Lord comes out and says "You should not do this anymore."

Well, actually, no. I don't have to find anything of the sort, because I don't believe it exists. I can't think of a SINGLE THING that God commanded that he had to "ease us into" to keep us from being shocked.

The closest thing I can think of would be plural marriage. Example: If a man from Africa with plural wives want's to become a Baptist, what do you do? Do you forbid him baptism unless he first divorces all but one of his wives? Or do you allow THAT generation to continue but forbid it from going on with future generations?

We use common sense. But there is no "command" from God that says, "If thou shalt accept an African pluralist, thou shalt be tolerant with his pluralism...."

Just like an alcoholic who gets saved, OC. I don't tell him, "well, yeah, it's OK that you keep drinking (more to the case at hand) because God doesn't want your system shocked". I pray for him, encourage him, and understand that he's an alcoholic, and this may be a struggle. There's "the law", and "justice", and "mercy" and "grace".

We don't make new rules for alcoholics or tobakkee chewers -- we simply understand that "becoming more like Christ" is a process.

For some reason the word "winked" comes to mind. So I did a search and found Acts 17:29-30

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

But that isn't really a true comparison either.

I think a true comparison is that, as we find people who are HABITUALLY disobedient, we DISCIPLE them, and encourage and be good examples to them, but it is not necessary to "modify" the commands of God to minister to them.

[Cow Poke]

I musta missed a question or a quote that you provided. Was this recorded in Church History that Joseph smoked just prior to death in Carthage?

You're doing that "not reading" thing again. Don't you think what I type is important?

Yes, OC, your Church history included "pipes and tobacco" in the stuff Smith asked for from jail.

And the "send a Baptist to hell" stuff...where does that come from?

Sorry, thought you were familiar with that. I was being facetious. When I was a kid, we were "independent Baptists" -- just about anything fun was sinful. (having a deck of "playing cards", smoking, dancing, drinking -- these were all thought to be horrible things) It is a characterization (perhaps over the top) that some of the old independent (fundamentalist?) Baptists (have you heard the term "hard shell Baptists"?) thought that smoking would "send you to Hell". - a very bad sin.

There was even a little ditty we used to quote (we were being bad)
"I don't smoke and I don't chew, and I don't run with those who do".

The use of tobacco was thought to be medicinally beneficial during the 19th Century. But the WoW was not adopted as commandment until about 1933.

AND ---- (NOTE TO OC!!!!! --- a POSSIBLE CONCESSION HERE!!!!!) ---- it was PIPES, apparently, not cigarettes, so MAYBE they were not "inhaling" - you know, like Clinton. (see? I'm trying to think objectively!)

This is why I said, maybe AT BEST, Smith was being a bad example. He was teaching "don't drink or smoke", but was doing it himself.

[OtherCheek]

I think a true comparison is that, as we find people who are HABITUALLY disobedient, we DISCIPLE them, and encourage and be good examples to them, but it is not necessary to "modify" the commands of God to minister to them.

On topic with the WoW and the LDS from the 1800's, these weren't "disobedient" people, and it wasn't given as a commandment.

Why do you ask if there was any similar situation from the Bible? Does there need to be?

[OtherCheek]

This is why I said, maybe AT BEST, Smith was being a bad example. He was teaching "don't drink or smoke", but was doing it himself.

It wasn't taught as a commandment until 1933. By anyone in the Church. Like we often say in the Church, it's not the drink of wine or coffee, or smoking of a cigar that will keep an LDS person out of the Celestial Kingdom, it is the attitude of disobedience that WILL. Again, there was no disobedience or bad example setting involved here. No moral right or wrong either. And no punishment affixed to any law either. The WoW was given as a Principle with a Promise---like saying "serving one another will make life happier for you and build character." (A Principle with a Promise)

And when it DID become a law of the Church, it was still not a law of God, like "Thou shalt not steal". It was a law of the Church.

I think I've adequately explained an LDS person's point of view on this common criticism of Joseph.

Thanks.

[Cow Poke]

It wasn't taught as a commandment until 1933. By anyone in the Church.

Yes, I got that, OC.

Like we often say in the Church, it's not the drink of wine or coffee, or smoking of a cigar that will keep an LDS person out of the Celestial Kingdom, it is the attitude of disobedience that WILL. Again, there was no disobedience or bad example setting involved here. No moral right or wrong either. And no punishment affixed to any law either. The WoW was given as a Principle with a Promise---like saying "serving one another will make life happier for you and build character." (A Principle with a Promise)

Did Smith teach to avoid wine and smoke, or not? Simple question.

And when it DID become a law of the Church, it was still not a law of God, like "Thou shalt not steal". It was a law of the Church.

If I tell my children that smoking is bad, between puffs on a cigarette, or that wine is bad, but I have some in the fridge for other-than-sacramental use, I'm a hypocrite, no?

I think I've adequately explained an LDS person's point of view on this common criticism of Joseph.

Thanks.

I think, what you have done, is you have made kabuki dancers jealous with envy.

[Cow Poke]

On topic with the WoW and the LDS from the 1800's, these weren't "disobedient" people, and it wasn't given as a commandment.

Word games.

Why do you ask if there was any similar situation from the Bible? Does there need to be?

You are convincing me even more that the God of Mormonism is inconsistent with the God of the Bible.

[Cow Poke]

OC,

No matter how you cut it, Smith had a PERFECT opportunity to "go out like a martyr", and your Church portrays the scene in all your literature in the most "pure" terms.

Knowing all the facts, regardless of the explanation, doesn't paint such a pretty picture.

Official version -- "like a lamb to the slaughter" by an angry mob.

Truthful version -- was in jail, smoked and drank with friends (and brother) then died exchanging gunfire against overwhelming odds with a mob consisting, at least in part, of people who where his former friends and Church officers.

Is ANY PART of that second version not true? ANY part? I'm not talking about "appearance" or "reason" or rationale -- I'm talking about the cold hard facts as your Church's history records them.

Smith had a tremendous opportunity to go out "pure". Jesus DID.

[Cow Poke]

It wasn't taught as a commandment until 1933.

Wait --- Smith owned a HOTEL that served LIQUOR?

fairmormon.org

The Word of Wisdom was not binding on Latter-day Saint members, and was certainly not seen as a requirement for non-members. Joseph's hotel would likely see many travelers who would be non-members, and he may have felt that his supervision would be better able to prevent the abuse and trouble which liquor often brought with it. Despite this, he seems to have gradually decided that the Mormons could not or should not impose their views on abstinence on the entire city and its population.

© source where applicable

And, apparently, this was ANOTHER thing about which Emma disagreed with her husband.

FairMormon.Org

Emma's concern, notably, does not have anything to do with the Word of Wisdom, but simply that she does not wish her children and home to be associated with the difficulties that came with the liquor trade, and that it looks bad for any religious leader to be in any way associated with something as disreputable as liquor.

© source where applicable

I'm with Emma on this one!

And Smith, as Mayor, benefited from a decision from his city council to sell alcohol.

FairMoromon.Org

On 12 December 1843, the city council in Nauvoo passed a law allowing the mayor (i.e., Joseph) to sell spirits:

Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo, that the Mayor of the city be and is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits of any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time.

© source where applicable

I believe, as ministers, that God gives us our wives for a reason, OC --- and my wife has given me "wisdom" on more than a few occasions that kept my butt out of trouble. I think Smith would have been wise to listen to Emma.

[OtherCheek]

I believe, as ministers, that God gives us our wives for a reason, OC

If Joseph was opposed to "temperance" in these habits, then how does that explain D&C Section 89? I think the WoW was seen as something compatible with the temperance movement at the time, and so it wasn't seen as critical to adhere to a "non-binding" Word of Wisdom.

--- and my wife has given me "wisdom" on more than a few occasions that kept my butt out of trouble. I think Smith would have been wise to listen to Emma.

Joseph's letters to Emma esp. from Liberty jail, indicate the closeness of their relationship. And their union was tight and he listened to her and considered her feelings. It was the tobacco spitting in the upper room of the Whitney store (and Emma's complaints about cleaning it up) which prompted Joseph's inquiry of the Lord, and the receiving of D&C 89.

What percent of Baptists refrain completely from alcohol today? Close to half? Isn't it forbidden by them? How long will it be before all Baptists get on board, or get kicked out of the church for NOT getting on board? Isn't abstinence church-wide policy? Or is it still viewed today in 2012 as a "temperance issue" (as it probably was in 1844 with the Mormons), instead of a strict "abstinence issue" (as it is now with the Mormons)?

What WOULD happen, if at the next SBC, total abstinence was made official doctrine (or at least in many Baptist Churches it was?) I wonder how well this would be received.

What do you think came first: The temperance movement in society which encouraged abstinence from alcoholic drinks, or the search for Biblical doctrines supporting abstinence from alcoholic beverages?

[Cow Poke]

If Joseph was opposed to "temperance" in these habits, then how does that explain D&C Section 89?

Yet another case of the Mormon Church adapting itself to the world? And, do you really mean the "temperance movement"?

I think the WoW was seen as something compatible with the temperance movement at the time, and so it wasn't seen as critical to adhere to a "non-binding" Word of Wisdom.

It appeared, from Emma's comments, and her interaction with her own husband, that it was pretty well established that the "head of a spiritual body" should not be involved in the sale or use of alcohol. I don't know why you keep trying to tie this to the WoW being "binding". I'm talking about good common sense and "appearance of evil", OC.

Joseph's letters to Emma esp. from Liberty jail, indicate the closeness of their relationship.

I have not disputed that in the least, have I?

And their union was tight and he listened to her and considered her feelings.

Horsehockey! He threatened her with DESTRUCTION because she failed to buy into his polygamy idea. And, yes, that's my opinion, but you have yet to convince me that God would make such a forceful and powerful declaration on an otherwise faithful spouse for no other reason that she didn't like having "sister wives" (or whatever).

It was the tobacco spitting in the upper room of the Whitney store (and Emma's complaints about cleaning it up) which prompted Joseph's inquiry of the Lord, and the receiving of D&C 89.

Please feel free to start a thread on tobacco spitting -- Brigham Young had some interesting things to say about it.

What percent of Baptists refrain completely from alcohol today? Close to half? Isn't it forbidden by them? How long will it be before all Baptists get on board, or get kicked out of the church for NOT getting on board? Isn't abstinence church-wide policy? Or is it still viewed today in 2012 as a "temperance issue" (as it probably was in 1844 with the Mormons), instead of a strict "abstinence issue" (as it is now with the Mormons)?

Please feel free to start a thread on Baptists and alcohol, OC. But hiding behind the apostate Baptists does not excuse Smith from the hypocrisy of starting the "Restored Church" if he simply bowed to the peer pressure of lost people in his town.

More from FairMormon.org

As one historian of Nauvoo noted:

Although Nauvoo was a city of temperate or abstinent Saints, it was also a burgeoning western river town. Doubtless most of its gentiles and many Mormons did not hold prohibitionist views, and the demand for alcohol in its various forms must have been more or less constant. Such pressure is evident in the gradual relaxation of the official attitude toward liquor....

There was apparently never any prohibition on the sale of beer and ale, and on April 9, 1842, the council acted to license taverns and ordinaries in the town to sell beer but not spirits. But on May 14, [Joseph] Smith recorded, "I attended city council in the morning, and…spoke at length for the repeal of the ordinance…licensing merchants, hawkers, taverns, and ordinaries, desiring that this might be a free people, and enjoy equal rights and privileges, and the ordinances were repealed."[4]

On 12 December 1843, the city council in Nauvoo passed a law allowing the mayor (i.e., Joseph) to sell spirits:

Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo, that the Mayor of the city be and is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits of any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time.

© source where applicable

What WOULD happen, if at the next SBC, total abstinence was made official doctrine (or at least in many Baptist Churches it was?) I wonder how well this would be received.

At the next SBC What? How do our meetings work, OC? How do "rules" get made or published? You don't have the first clue.

It was, apparently, well known at the time that, even though there was a widespread problem with alcohol, it was not proper for ministers to engage it its use and sales. Smith had city ordinances (who controlled the city council in Nauvoo?) crafted to allow him to sell alcohol, and he set up a BAR in his HOTEL.