The Mormon Church before 1900

[Guest Sweetcurio]

Mormon Fool: I was brought up to show scripture when I make a blanket statement about a biblical topic. You make these statements about Samuel, but don't back them up. You say that Samuel had a reputation for accepting money for his precious prophetic ability? How in the world do you get that out of Samuel 9? Samuel doesn't even mention the money. Perhaps very worldly people thought that they could buy Samuel's power for secular reasons. But there is no scriptural evidence of this. You can't distort or read into the scriptures of the Bible things to justify a lame position.

[cinepro]

I've never been able to get my questions answered to my satisfaction. The missionaries in Los Angeles are pretty shallow and unable to answer my questions.

So you came to an online message board?!

Honestly, if you are getting hung up over these issues and chose not to follow the path set by the missionaries (read selected passages from the Book of Mormon, ponder those passages, and pray), then don't expect miracles.

The path of historical investigation regarding Joseph Smith's life and claims isn't the best way to get a testimony; in fact for some LDS, it has led them out of the Church.

So read the apologetic references already provided. They provide the best explanation/spin on the subject, and if you don't find it a convincing salve for your doubts, no amount of back and forth here will help you.

For the "alternate" (i.e. non-faith promoting) view, I recommend these sites to start:

http://www.irr.org/mit/

http://www.lds4u.com/

[Jarrod]

Be careful, Sweetcurio. It has been demonstrated countless times that people who study too much information about the church study their way out of it altogether.

The best possible way to secure and maintain a testimony of the church is to read only a watered-down fraction of the information about it, and then to bear testimony that you know you have the truth. As Boyd K. Packer instructs, "A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!" (see The Candle of the Lord).

I wish you good luck and great enlightenment as you sort through all of this information.

[mormon fool]

SC,

I will help you out some, although I don't know how you can not see the relationship between Samuel 9 and the reputation he apparently (to me but not you) had of using his gifts as a Seer for finding lost animals for a fee. I did go over what elements I base my informed conclusion on in a previous post but perhaps restating it again will bring you up to speed.

Saul and his servant are looking for lost asses for some time and over a great distance v. 3-4, Saul is about to give up (v. 5), the servant mentions a prophet that could aid their search (v. 6), Saul voices an expectation for a payment necessary for such services and notes a lack of a "present" (v. 7). His servant has some money so they proceed (v. .

I think that these passages show that Saul and his servant expected Samuel to help them find their asses and expected to pay him for it, else why go to all the trouble? Hence I can confidently conclude Samuel had a reputation.

Nothing I see in 1Samuel 9 negates this reputation. Just because Samuel didn't accept money in this case, doesn't mean that was always his mode.

[Guest Sweetcurio]

Mormon Fool , Cinepro, and Jarrod Why don't you want to aanswer my questions? Are they too controversial? My father told me not to be surprised when you would decline answering my questions. If I am going to invest my life in something as encompassing as the Mormon Church, I intend to investigate it to the nth degree before I committ. Is this wrong? If you think so, you don't have much faith in God's power to lead a person to truth through the human senses. Do I pray? Yes I pray, for God to allow me to use wisdom as I gain knowledge. I watched one of the videos that your missionaries presented. It was called "Man's Search for Happiness." The last few lines of that video made the statement that I am making now. "Prove all things, hold fast that which is true." Folks, that's what I'm trying to do. If the Mormon Church is the one true church on the face of the earth and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, prove it to me. There is a scripture in the New Testament, I don't know where it is, but it Paul the Apostle talking about the Bereans who were more noble because they opened their scriptures to see whether the things Paul said were true and of God. Paul didn't say they were more noble because they "prayed" about those things for God to tell them that they were true. I do remember I Timothy 3:16 that says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man (or woman) of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work." I memorized this scripture when I was very young. It didn't say "prayer" was the way to be thoroughly furnished. Prayer is important, but referring to the scriptures in times of doubt is more important.

My father told me about a family of five that was broken up in my hometown because the Mormon missionaries encouraged the mother and wife to join the Church even though her husband was fervently Catholic. The children were involved in a catholic school and so on. Anyway, the wife told the missionaries that she didn't understand all of the strange doctrines of the Mormons. The missionaries told her to just trust the felling that she had about Joseph Smith. She did and, against her husbands wishes she was baptized. The next day she gave her husband an ultimatum to either join the Mormons or she would get a divorce. Well, the husband got the divorce and went to court and got custody of the children. To make a long story short, this family was ruined. They were happy before the Mormons knocked on their door. The really sad thing about it was that the mother later learned a lot of things about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, from a book from her ward library called "Joseph Smith, by Donna Hill, that the missionaries hadn't told her, and, shortly after, left the Mormon Church. The family never got back together. I guess you'll say that her testimony was great enough to withstand the stubbornness of her husband, but not great enough to withstand the truth of history.

[mormon fool]

Just for the record here is a respected non-Mormon commentary on the first part of 1 Sam. 9

http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc/mhc/1samuel.html

Verses 1-10 Saul readily went to seek his father's asses. His obedience to his father was praise-worthy. His servant proposed, that since they were now at Ramah, they should call on Samuel, and take his advice. Wherever we are, we should use our opportunities of acquainting ourselves with those who are wise and good. Many will consult a man of God, if he comes in their way, that would not go a step out of their way to get wisdom. We sensibly feel worldly losses, and bestow much pains to make them up; but how little do we attempt, and how soon are we weary, in seeking the salvation of our souls! If ministers could tell men how to secure their property, or to get wealth, they would be more consulted and honoured than they now are, though employed in teaching them how to escape eternal misery, and to obtain eternal life. Most people would rather be told their fortune than their duty. Samuel needed not their money, nor would he have denied his advice, if they had not brought it; but they gave it to him as a token of respect, and of the value they put upon his office, and according to the general usage of those times, always to bring a present to those in authority.

[Kenngo1969]

Makarios Previously Posted: Will asking God about something make history go away?

Ken Responded: Nope, but then, I don't need, nor do I want, a testimony of Church history. As for you, it appears that you've reached a level of certainty about history that even most all historians would envy. Congratulations!

Makarios Then Asked: What level of certainty about history have I made a claim about? How does asking a simple question make most historians envious of me?

Ken Now Responds: The level of certainty you have reached regarding the Church's history is implicit in your first question: Will asking God about something make history go away? Translation? There is enough undesirable information in Church history that if one probes too closely, one's foundation in the Church is apt to be severely shaken--or perhaps even unmoored. [This is how I understood your comments; if I am mistaken, please don't hesitate to let me know.]

Faithful LDS historians, by contrast (and faithful LDS in general) need not have their foundations in the Church unduly shaken by anything in its history, for at least four reasons:

(1) People are people--and they've always been people. If the foundation of my faith rests on Jesus Christ, I need not worry about Joseph Smith's--or anyone else's--imperfections.

(2) Some historical figures, every bit as much as the Church's detractors today, had their own agendas to advance, their own axes to grind, and their own (sometimes nefarious) motivations for doing the things they did and saying the things they said. We would do well not to forget that as we study Church history.

(3) Joseph Smith, his associates, and what they said and did should be judged, not by the standards of 2004, but rather by the standards of their time. This is often difficult to do, because our view of their time is so fragmentary, incomplete, and unclear. The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press is a perfect example: even if one makes the case that it's a clear First Amendment violation by 2004 standards, First Amendment Doctrine wasn't nearly so well developed (if we were being pejorative, we might say "enlightened") in 1844 as it is in 2004.

And (4) As Stephen R. Covey put it, we don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are. We're all shaped by our own unique experiences, perceptions, attitudes, and so forth. The same is true of historians: they don't see the past as it was, they see it as they are. This is particularly so, given my point above: that even our best views of the past are still fragmentary, incomplete, and unclear.

This is why I say that I would be hesitant (To say the least!)--and why I believe most Church historians are hesitant--to reject the Church or its doctrines on the basis of anything in its history. I deduced from your question--Will asking God about something make history go away?--that you appear much more willing than I am (or than they are) to reject the Church based on its history. If you choose to do that, then that is certainly your right. But my answer to your question is, No, asking God about something won't make history "go away"--but why should it?

P.S. Incidentally, Davis Bitton makes these points far better than I can in his essay/presentation, I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church on the FAIR Web site. I commend it to you highly.

P.P.S. Coding edit.

[Guest Sweetcurio]

Mormon Fool: your use of I Samuel 9 is pretty shallow. You base a solid reputation of a person on a scripture that doesn't even include a statement from the person. That would be considered hearsay evidence in a court of law. There are no references in the Old Testament to Samuel finding lost things by the use of his prophetic powers. In fact, in I Samuel 9, Samuel didn't tell Saul where the asses were. He merely said, "set not thy mind upon them, for they are found." You base your view only on a sketchy statement by the servant of Saul that he would give the seer a quarter sheckel to find the asses. Saul doen't even respond directly to the servant that he would do it. Your inferences are faulty. As I understand it, you also base your entire biblical defense of baptism for the dead on I Cor 15:29. You also use I and II Peter for that purpose. But if I Cor. 15:29 was not there you wouldn't be able to use I and II Peter for a contextual reference. That's putting a lot of emphasis on one very short and undefined scripture. I am getting sleepy. I think I will get some sleep. Bye for now.

[mormon fool]

Mormon Fool , Cinepro, and Jarrod  Why don't you want to aanswer my questions?

While I can't answer for the others, I think we are in agreement that you could benefit from checking the links that have been provided. I for one would be more happy to answer questions if I could tell you were following the links and absorbing the information in a critical thinking manner. I appreciate you looking into 1 Samuel reference, for instance. My answers have been specific to a particular issue. Posters can get confused if a thread jumps over all kinds of topics.

[Kenngo1969]

Previously Posted by Sweet Curio: Mormon Fool: your use of I Samuel 9 is pretty shallow. You base a solid reputation of a person on a scripture that doesn't even include a statement from the person. That would be considered hearsay evidence in a court of law.

Ken Responds: Actually, testimony of a person's reputation given by his friends and associates isn't barred by the Federal Rules of Evidence, nor is it barred by those of any state of which I'm aware (as state rules of evidence parallel their federal counterparts in most all--if not all--states). Such testimony is actually quite common.

[Nighthawke]

If the Mormon Church is the one true church on the face of the earth and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, prove it to me. 

It is the Holy Spirit that converts; not Latter-day Saints who happen to be on a message board.

There is a scripture in the New Testament...

I see we have something in common, we both cherish the scriptures.

It didn't say "prayer" was the way to be thoroughly furnished. Prayer is important, but referring to the scriptures in times of doubt is more important.

O you secure and safe ones who hide yourselves behind the defence-works of the law so that you will not have to look into God

[mormon fool]

Mormon Fool: your use of I Samuel 9 is pretty shallow. You base a solid reputation of a person on a scripture that doesn't even include a statement from the person.

Its possible to figure out what someone's reputation is without a statement from that person. For example I might have a reputation for making lame arguments, being a fool, and taking scriptures out of context, but you won't hear that from me.

That would be considered hearsay evidence in a court of law.

Many of the accusations you have leveled at Joseph Smith have just as much support. I am all for analysis that takes distance removed from the source into account.

There are no references in the Old Testament to Samuel finding lost things by the use of his prophetic powers. In fact, in I Samuel 9, Samuel didn't tell Saul where the asses were. He merely said, "set not thy mind upon them, for they are found."

Good point, I wonder what takes more prophetic skill, knowing that an animal is in a state of being found or where an animal might be found.

Your inferences are faulty.

Well Mathew Henry comments that a present for the prophet was the norm, but I don't know what inferences this is based on either.

As I understand it, you also base your entire biblical defense of baptism for the dead on I Cor 15:29. You also use I and II Peter for that purpose. But if I Cor. 15:29 was not there you wouldn't be able to use I and II Peter for a contextual reference. That's putting a lot of emphasis on one very short and undefined scripture.

I don't believe I would defend this principle in such a poor manner. But that would be another topic. Maybe we should all practice defending from the bible without considering one verse of an oponent's choosing.

I am getting sleepy. I think I will get some sleep. Bye for now.

[Jarrod]

Mormon Fool , Cinepro, and Jarrod  Why don't you want to aanswer my questions?

Well, I thought my sarcasm was as obvious as yours. You have asked a lot of questions, and I answered some of them. Tell you what, ask me a small direct question and I'll give you a small, direct answer.

[Guest Sweetcurio]

Mormon Fool: Yawn!! If you think I haven't been responding to the links, your wrong. I read very rapidly and have the use of two computers. You might say I'm a computer geek. I am also very good about assimilating information about almost anything. But if you expect me to read your material and immediately agree with you and posit my statements in allignment with your threads, you're sadly mistaken. I write as reason dictates. And to Kenngo1969, there are some exceptions to the Federal Hearsay Rules, as in Rule 803(6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. A "written" memoradum about a person kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity is an exception. But a verbal, off-the-cuff statement such as what the servant of Saul said in regard to his expectations of Samuel would not be admissable. Just to let you know, I'm pre-law. Since they had had no real dealings with Samuel and didn't even know where to find him, no court, especially a federal court, wouldn't accept the spurious statement of a total stranger to Samuel. I am beginning to see how zealous Mormons, in the practice of apologetics, can swallow a camel but choke on a gnat.

[mormon fool]

Yawn!!  If you think I haven't been responding to the links, your wrong.

We look forward to your critiques of the links provided. What flaws do you see in them?

[Kenngo1969]

Previously Posted by Sweet Curio: Just to let you know, I'm pre-law.

Ken Responds: Oh. I'm sorry! I should have genuflected in your direction as I was making my last post! I was making a general comment about the admissibility of reputation testimony in modern American courts of law. I'm well aware of the rules and their exceptions. Still, since the law of Samuel's time was vastly different than ours today, neither your argument (nor, admittedly, my counterargument) has much relevance.

Sincerely,

Ken

a.k.a. J.D. -15

S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah

Class of 2005.

See you in court, "Counselor"!

[mormon fool]

Here is a quote from Dan Vogel (who is not a mormon apologist) of some interest to all the law students here in regards to "guilty". And I note that Vogel has some views in this article that do not agree with some that have been presented here.

[Pahoran]

Be careful, Sweetcurio.  It has been demonstrated countless times that people who study too much information about the church study their way out of it altogether.

The best possible way to secure and maintain a testimony of the church is to read only a watered-down fraction of the information about it, and then to bear testimony that you know you have the truth.  As Boyd K. Packer instructs, "A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!" (see The Candle of the Lord).

This is the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon propaganda on the subject; so, for anyone lacking the critical faculties necessary to question it, it must be true.

I wish you good luck and great enlightenment as you sort through all of this information.

Not to mention the disinformation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

Just to let you know, I'm pre-law.

Oh, my. Just to let you know...we have several "post-law" people here...as well as some scholars who do not rely on Strong's Concordances. When do you start rebuting the information you are being buried with instead of changing the subject? Or havent' you taken that class yet?

[Pahoran]

Rabanes,

thank you so much for condescending to give us the benefit of your vastly superior knowledge.

There's only one problem--it ain't.

You concluded:

Smith was already a money-digger and practicioner of occult folk magick[sic] before 1826, so much so that he had somewhat of a reputation as an adept money-digger (this is circa 1825/26).

And your evidence for this was:

That is why Josiah Stowell came to hire  him, as Joseph's own mother reported: "

[Makarios]

Makarios Previously Posted: Will asking God about something make history go away?

Ken Responded:  Nope, but then, I don't need, nor do I want, a testimony of Church history.    As for you, it appears that you've reached a level of certainty about history that even most all historians would envy. Congratulations! 

Makarios Then Asked:  What level of certainty about history have I made a claim about? How does asking a simple question make most historians envious of me?

Ken Now Responds:  The level of certainty you have reached regarding the Church's history is implicit in your first question:  Will asking God about something make history go away?  Translation?  There is enough undesirable information in Church history that if one probes too closely, one's foundation in the Church is apt to be severely shaken--or perhaps even unmoored.  [This is how I understood your comments; if I am mistaken, please don't hesitate to let me know.]

I have no idea how you got all that from my question. I have made no claims in this thread whatsoever. Don't jump the gun and assume you can read my mind. My question was directed to Devin who seemed to imply that history doesn't matter and all we need to do is ask god.

[Kenngo1969]

Sweetcurio Previously Posted: Just to let you know, I'm pre-law.

Juliann Responded: Oh, my. Just to let you know...we have several "post-law" people here...

Ken Now Says: I do hope you stay the course and choose to study law after you get a 4-year degree, Sweetcurio, because if your posts here (and your dismissive treatment of other posters) are any indication, you desperately need the massive infusion of humility which law school--particularly the Dreaded "First Year"--has been known to provide for so many... I look forward to seeing your metamorphosis from a Big Fish in a small pond to a small fish in a Big Ocean!

And make no mistake, Curio: law school will humble you. The humility is a necessity part of the teaching process, because there's no way you can learn anything if you think you already know it all. And even if you really did know all there was to know in that small pond, there will be plenty of fish who've come from even bigger ponds. And those fish will be more ready than you could ever imagine to swim in the Vast, Wide, Open Ocean Called Law School. In fact, some of those "fish" aren't "fish" at all: some of them, Curio, are Sharks!

Good luck. If your approach to law school is anything like your approach to this Board has been, you're going to need it.

[Kenngo1969]

Previously Posted by Makarios: I have no idea how you got all that from my question. I have made no claims in this thread whatsoever. Don't jump the gun and assume you can read my mind. My question was directed to Devin who seemed to imply that history doesn't matter and all we need to do is ask god.

Ken Responds: I wasn't trying to read your mind. When you asked whether "God can make history go away," I took as the logical implication from that question that you felt there was some reason why it ought to go away--that there was something in the Church's history we ought to be ashamed of or that would make some of the faithful lose their testimony if they knew, or which would prevent honest seekers for truth from gaining a testimony if they knew.

Devin is right: no one's testimony of the Church should be based on historical trivia which are not readily accessible to the rank-and-file. If that were so, then only historians would have a testimony of the Church, and surely that is not what God intends. Rather, once you've gained a testimony of the Church's foundation Scripture (The Book of Mormon) and of its foundation events (chiefly, Joseph Smith's First Vision), nothing else in the Church's history should be able to shake that foundation.

P.S.: Edited for clarity.

[rabanes]

PAH: thank you so much for condescending to give us the benefit of your vastly superior knowledge.

RA: I did no such thing. Just offering what I think are corrections. It doesn't mean I'm "superior"

[Makarios]

Rather, once you've gained a testimony of the Church's foundation Scripture (The Book of Mormon) and of its foundation events (chiefly, Joseph Smith's First Vision), nothing else in the Church's history should be able to shake that foundation.

Unless it turns out the foundation is made of sand.

Look, I'm not saying it is.

But if someone gained a testimony that the earth is flat they might want to reconsider how valid that testimony is when confronted with new information.