On my mission all my investigators got antied with most of these sorts of things. Usually in mysterious ways. For instance one investigation had an estranged family member pop up they hadn’t seen in a long time who just happened to have anti-Mormon materials to hand out. Very strange since there didn’t seem to have been a way they could have known they were investigating. Yet if we’d made it past the third discussion, had taught them to go to God directly, the anti materials not only didn’t hurt them but forced them to go to God thereby strengthening rather than weakening their resolve. Those who weren’t quite prepared for that always stopped the discussion.

I don’t want to say that’s all that’s going on. Further there’s a spectrum of how people respond to the spirit from those who can’t seem to identify it at all to those for whom its easy and clear. But I tend to think that’s the real issue. What makes the problems into a live problem rather than simply issues we acknowledge but aren’t bothered by. There are after all a lot of people who know a lot about these issues who don’t find their testimonies shattered in the least. Critics are prone to try and brush them away through reductive means like “cognitive dissonance” but that’s simply not engaging with what they actually say.

I’m sorry, but this conversation isn’t going to work. I’d like to discuss it, but my comments are being deleted. I’m honestly not trying to be offensive. Maybe another time. Sorry.

It would seem that at a minimum necessary to understand D&C 132 would be the rhetorical parallels to the passages that constitute a rhetorical context. I didn’t get a chance to more than glance at the post before it was removed, but I recall a focus on the “destroy” rhetoric. But that’s a fairly common way to talk and to divorce it from that rhetorical context and consider only a “regularly day” rhetorical context is deeply misleading. (Basically the same exegetical move that “literalists” do with Genesis to get a young earth history) In addition we have to raise the question of post-life relationships as I’ve noted several times. The question of polyandry in D&C 132 also seems something some historians bring up. (It’s been discussed at Juvenile Instructor several times for instance) I also think of necessity is the context of Emma’s blocking of prior revelations. That seems to be the key issue but is more complex than either side typically wants to admit. It also makes for some interesting parallels between Emma and say Alma 36 (where the “destruction” term also appears). Finally I don’t think one can separate questions of consequences from questions of final desert – either spirit paradise & spirit prison; eternal progression; or final judgment of exaltation with all others facing limits. Also included must be sin the against the Holy Ghost and the idea of where much is given much is required. Finally to judge marital views in 1840’s independent of national normative marital views is extremely distorting.

Look, I fully admit I have no particular inspiration or revelation on the subject, unlike a lot of other topics. At best I have a burden of proof position based upon what I feel confident about in other areas. My personal view is that Emma had become a foe to the gospel and that Joseph’s huge mistake in Nauvoo was unwise loyalty. That includes to the Laws, Bennett, his brother who was engaged in a lot of the bad behavior and a lot else. Both Emma’s and Joseph’s actions are, once one looks at the context and their view, completely understandable. But of course understandable is not the same as justifiable. I think that if it was clear Emma was unwilling to accept the revelations that Joseph should have divorced her rather than what he did. However as Truman Madsen notes, Joseph loved Emma and we should look at his actions through that lens. Vice versa is true as well.

I think the Church would do better moving more towards earlier views of Emma rather than the current hagiography that it sometimes engages in with Emma.

The question is though whether Joseph’s mistakes (and of course there are many) constitute leading the church astray. Those who think there was probably some real revelations behind the practices but that Joseph handled things poorly most likely think he didn’t. Those who think it was all justification for Joseph’s lusts of course think he did, since the practice persisted into Utah.

Yes, that summarizes my comment. Though I wrote it better. :-)

Have a wonderful day.

I personally think it requires some stamina, and also open minded ness, or willingness to be influenced, to be a prophet which men in their 80s and 90s no longer have.

Still, as much as this teaching might give me some comfort, I’m perplexed by the conflict between even this watered-down version and other prominent church teachings. Consider the teaching that God works through prophets today in the same way he did previously, i.e. we are a restored church. That teaching cannot be accurate if our prophet as limitations that prior prophets did not. Either our prophet can lead (or watch) as the church goes into apostacy, or God is working today through some super-prophet that has more ability (or less agency) than prophets in prior times.

In any case as others said, I don’t think most of the examples critics raise constitute leading the church astray.

I see the church as made up of the Gospel, programmes originally designed to help us live the Gospel, and Apostles teaching their personal/political views as if they are the Gospel.

Most of the problems in church history come from the last category, so I believe it is our responsibility to compare teachings with the Gospel of Christ. I can see a conflict between love your fellow man, and deprive, blacks of the priesthood, or, gays of equality, which Oaks and his disciples preach almost to a majority of conference talks.

I think this amounts to leading astray, but I remain because I can still see the Gospel being taught, usually by Uchtdorf, and sometimes by others. Uchtdorf for President (of the church)