Dutcher sinking lower

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Islander

I doubt any amount of professional achievement can compensate for the pain and heartache he experienced after recognizing of the gravity of his sin. Forgiveness is of the Lord and available to all that truly repent and turn to Him. While one is away from his embrace because of sin we are cut off from his power.Oliver was no exception. He was fallen and in peril of losing his salvation.

My approach is historical, and addressed the claims made by your quoted source. This is because from what we know of Cowdrey’s life beyond Mormonism, your quoted source is wrong.

I was responding to the claim s/he made:

But the moment he left the kingdom of God, that moment his power fell like lightning from Heaven. He was shorn of his strength like Samson in the lap of Delilah.

Obviously this was not true, as Cowdrey went on to live a successful life for the next ten years.

The early Saints often claimed an excommunicated Mormon's life beyond the Church was filled with despair and suffering, when, in fact, some went on to lead successful lives, and some didn’t. An excellent example of the first is Emma Smith. So was Oliver Cowdrey.

I also responded to this:

He lost the power and the testimony which he had enjoyed. . . .

There is no evidence Cowdrey did not regain his testimony; in fact, there is no evidence he lost it. That Cowdrey never denied he saw the golden plates suggests he did not lose his testimony, though I admit, this is purely supposition on my part.

The following is part of his plea to be rejoined with the Church:

Brethren, for a number of years, I have been separated from you. I now desire to come back. I wish to come humble and be one in your midst. I seek no station. I only wish to be identified with you. I am out of the Church, but I wish to become a member. I wish to come in at the door; I know the door, I have not come here to seek precedence. I come humbly and throw myself upon the decision of the body, knowing as I do, that its decisions are right."

Again, there is nothing here to suggest Cowdrey lost his testimony, or regained it. Either way, your quoted source is wrong.

What Cowdrey did lose faith in was Joseph himself, and his actions, including, but not limited to, polygamy. And he was excommunicated for it.

I also responded to this:

although he died in the Church

Again, I have no idea who your quoted source is, but we do know David Whitmer said

Oliver died the happiest man I ever saw.

Since your quoted source was wrong about everything else, I see no reason to consider his belief that Cowdrey died without a testimony to be wrong as well.

I made no comments about his salvation; rather, I showed how the historical record disagrees with your quoted source.

Elphaba

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

My approach is historical, and addressed the claims made by your quoted source. This is because from what we know of Cowdrey’s life beyond Mormonism, your quoted source is wrong.

Again, I have no idea who your quoted source is, but we do know David Whitmer said
Since your quoted source was wrong about everything else, I see no reason to consider his belief that Cowdrey died without a testimony to be wrong as well.

I made no comments about his salvation; rather, I showed how the historical record disagrees with your quoted source.

Elphaba

You are entitled to your opinion of "history" but since I was quoting a prophet of the Lord I seriously doubt anybody else thoughts on the matter would carry more weight.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Only upon Principles of Righteousness

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Islander

You are entitled to your opinion of "history" but since I was quoting a prophet of the Lord I seriously doubt anybody else thoughts on the matter would carry more weight.

I'm sure this is true. It doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is a good man's name has been sullied, and continues to be sullied, by the Woodruff quote you posted above.

Woodruff wasn't a prophet when he said what he did about Cowdery. It was only his opinion, an opinion that is not supported by historical facts, including other quotes by Woodruff.

Woodruff is in good company, as all of the earliest presidents of the Church said things that were not true. I’m not saying they didn’t believe what they said, but they said them nevertheless. Blood atonement is a good example of this.

Another example is Joseph F. Smith’s missive about evolution, in which he said it was not factual. Today a significant number of Saints know he was wrong, and when someone bring it up, (usually someone who has just found an “anti-“ site, and thinks if he lets everyone know, testimonies will fall by the wardful) , the response I hear the most is “he wasn’t a prophet when he said it“; thus, we shouldn’t treat it as if it is true.

I suspect you think it didn’t matter because he did become the prophet, and I agree with you. I think the “he wasn’t a prophet then,” is a weak argument. Yet, that’s what I hear more often than not.

However, I think it’s a moot point, as the quote is obviously Woodruff’s opinion, and nothing more.

Additionally, neither the Millennial Star nor the Ensign (the two publications I could find it in) are official doctrine of the Church, so they are considered opinions as well. In fact, I think it is telling no one, including President Hinckley for whom I have great respect, brings up Whitmer’s quote that Cowdery died a very happy man.

Woodruff: He lost the power and the testimony which he had enjoyed, and he never recovered it again in its fulness while in the flesh, although he died in the Church”.

Again, this is simply not true. Cowdrey spent six years in efforts to rejoin the Church--that is not how someone without a testimony acts.

In fact, his disagreements with the Church were all temporal, and nothing spiritual. He never denied his witness of the golden plates, nor did he ever say the Church was not true, even when people rejected him for it.

Also, if you read Woodruff’s entire sermon, it’s obvious he is looking for examples of what I mentioned in my last post: they left the Church and led miserable lives because of it. Cowdery’s excommunication was a perfect foil from the pulpit, but not from reality.

According to another source, David Whitmer, Cowdery said his good-byes and bore his closing testimony, he "died the happiest man I ever saw.... [Oliver] said, 'Now I lay me down for the last time, I am going to my Savior,' and died immediately with a smile on his face."

Frankly, I don't give that quote any more weight than Woodruff's, as most people don't die with a smile of their face (I said most. )

But that doesn't mean he was miserable, and he definitely had a testimony to the day he died.

Again, it is wrong to sully this man's reputation, as he was a good, decent man who had honest and sincere issues with the temporal matters of the Church. He didn't just quit the Church because he lost his testimony. It's much more complicated than that.

But he did come back. That could inspire many people who want to do the same.

Elphaba

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I'm sure this is true. It doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is a good man's name has been sullied, and continues to be sullied, by the Woodruff quote you posted above.

Woodruff wasn't a prophet when he said what he did about Cowdery. It was only his opinion, an opinion that is not supported by historical facts, including other quotes by Woodruff.

Again, it is wrong to sully this man's reputation, as he was a good, decent man who had honest and sincere issues with the temporal matters of the Church. He didn't just quit the Church because he lost his testimony. It's much more complicated than that.

But he did come back. That could inspire many people who want to do the same.

Elphaba

You go to great length to justify your opinion and position on the matter. At this point, as usual, it matters very little in your view that President Hinckley also used the source and the history of the events as a teaching moment. Since you already made up your mind I guess I have very little to add to the exchange.

I suspect your experience in the priesthood is quite limited. Regardless of the man, if sin and apostasy enters in one's life, the authority, the Spirit and the access to the privileges and keys of the priesthood are withdrawn. The very powers of Heaven are visibly, sometimes, removed from the hands of that man and he is left a specter of his former self. I have seen it with my own two eyes. An appointment to City Council and County Supervisor, a successful multimillion dollar business or any other social and worldly achievement could not compensate for the loss of previously attained standing, blessings and the favor of God when serving righteously in his kingdom. After that, even on account of repentance and great spiritual wrestling, it is hard to regain solid ground. Those who knew Oliver saw this struggle and testified of it as a warning and a lesson to all. In no way what he went thru diminishes his contribution to the Church before and after his excommunication and re-baptism. Feel free to believe what you will on the subject but, if "temporal affairs" were sufficient to shake Oliver's testimony after ALL he had seen and heard, to use this snapshot of history as a teaching moment is of great worth.

"When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men; They are called to be the savor of men; therefore, if that salt of the earth lose its savor, behold, it is thenceforth good for nothing only to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men." D&C 101 39-40

[gabelpa]

I have not seen any of Dutcher's films, nor do I intend to in the future. Not because of who he is, who he was, or what he made. Rather, because I don't have the stomach for the genre. I also doubt I will see anything he will do in the future, His next film involves Lilith.

I can't blame him for trying to distance himself from a specific sub-genre as a career move. I don't know if leaving the Church was a requirement or if there were other factors. It is Hollywood after all.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Islander

You go to great length to justify your opinion and position on the matter.

Of course I do. You do it as well. So what?

At this point, as usual, it >snip< I guess I have very little to add to the exchange.

And, as usual, you continue to add to the exchange.

I have seen it with my own two eyes. . . . could not compensate for the loss of previously attained standing, blessings and the favor of God when serving righteously in his kingdom.

I have seen it as well. I’ve also seen devout Saints, in successful secular positions just like you described above, who have testimonies as strong as yours.

After that, even on account of repentance and great spiritual wrestling, it is hard to regain solid ground.

So the thousands of people who are excommunicated may not regain that solid ground? What then is the purpose of the excommunication, if not to give a person the chance to regain solid ground? It’s my understanding the decision to excommunicate a person is out of love, so the person has the chance to start over again. Is this not true?

Also, what then is the purpose of being re-baptized? It’s my understanding your sins are washed away, and it is a fresh start for those who make that choice. Is this not true as well?

By the way, after Oliver was re-baptized, he was once again a member in good standing, until his death.

Those who knew Oliver saw this struggle and testified of it as a warning and a lesson to all.

Those who knew Oliver testified to no such thing.

In fact, Gunn, who you quoted as a source, wrote:

In 1847 Oliver moved to Wisconsin, where he continued his law practice and was almost elected to the first state legislature, in spite of newspaper accounts ridiculing his published declaration of seeing the angel and the plates. In his ten years outside the Church, Cowdery never succumbed to the considerable pressure to deny his Book of Mormon testimony. Indeed, letters to his LDS relatives show that he was hurt at the Church's rejection but remained a deep believer. (emphasis mine)

Another example comes from Oliver‘s wife, who said of her husband’s lifelong commitment:

He always without one doubt…affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon.”

Yet, President Woodruff used Oliver's post-excommunication to prove people do not recover if they leave the Church. As I said, sometimes this is true, and sometimes it's not. With Oliver, it was not.

I am not saying this was an easy thing for Oliver. I'm sure there are times when it wasn't. However, Oliver did not "suffer" for it, as his faith in The Book of Mormon, and the Church, never wavered.

In no way what he went thru diminishes his contribution to the Church before and after his excommunication and re-baptism.

I agree. Yet President Woodruff clearly chose not to add the "after his excommunication and re-baptism" part to his talk at the pulpit. Given this was 48 years after Oliver's death, I can't imagine President Woodruff did not know how content Oliver was to return to his beloved Church. Perhaps his observations were wrong. Or, perhaps he used a man who had been dead for 48 years as an example to support his point, whether it was out of context, or not.

"When men are called >snip< D&C 101 39-40

This is a perfect example of leaving out the context.

This scripture stops abruptly, never explaining the person who was “cast out and trodden under the feet of men,“ repented and returned to the fold. Yet you posted it to support your position, which works when your audience doesn't think to question it. The result is an audience with a skewed understanding of what really happened, and it is wrong for you to leave them with that idea.

Since we’re quoting scripture, the following is the parable of the Prodigal Son, which I am sure you know well. (I have used elipses to save space and the emphasis is mine.)

. . . .
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
. . . .
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.
. . . .
32 . . . for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Oliver is the quintessential Prodigal Son. He was one of the most important founders of the Church, which included his being one of the three witnesses, and Christ's visitation at the Kirtland Temple. He was also the first member of the Church to speak at a public meeting (I didn't know this, and just read about it. I can't quite wrap my head around it, given the importance the Church places on talks. Oliver was the first, and that is amazing to me.)

Oliver's belief in the Church never wavered, and when he returned, there were many "fathers" welcoming him back with open arms, as they knew how much he had done for the Church, and thus, for them.

In fact, according to Gunn:

. . . the last letter Oliver ever wrote was to the Quorum of the Twelve, accepting its assignment to lobby on behalf of the Church in Washington.

This is not a benign assignment; rather, it describes the faith the Quorum had in him. This is a man whose faith stood the test of persecution, poverty, loss of status, failing health, and the tragic deaths of five of his children.

This is a man who, in spite of these trials, had a strong, unwavering testimony, who returned to his beloved Church, and was content for the remainder of his life for doing so.

So if you find yourself in need of a teaching moment, and Oliver's life story pops into your head, be aware your comments should not be restricted to his condemnation.

They should also be about his redemption.

Elphaba

[Islander]

Elphaba:

I feel sorry for you

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Islander

Elphaba:

I feel sorry for you

I appreciate that. I am pretty pathetic, aren't I?

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by gabelpa

I have not seen any of Dutcher's films, nor do I intend to in the future. Not because of who he is, who he was, or what he made. Rather, because I don't have the stomach for the genre.

I'm not sure I understand this. The genre in question here is LDS films...films about LDS culture, meant for an LDS audience. As someone outside your church, I found God's Army an authentic and appealing story--one that improved my impressions about the faith. States of Grace (aka God's Army II) was even more authentic and appealing. It did ruffle the feathers of some LDS, who choose to limit themselves to purely faith-promoting films (sans the realism, imho). On the other hand, once again, I found it appealing and real and ultimately pro.

So...if your non-desire to see his films is not because of Dutcher's leaving the church, what is it about this genre that is difficult to stomach?