Complete Honesty Versus Protection Of Faith

[Calm]

In my opinion having affairs with married women, even goes against section132 in the D & C. And please, it's been established that some were consumated. I'm sick of people denying the truth.

With the married women?

Well where is the seed of JS polyandry, speculation of course, that Patty Session's daughter Josephine might be a child.

No, it was Sylvia's daughter that is most likely his child. If you read the paper I linked to, did you notice the below?

Either way, if Sylvia meant with certainty that Joseph was the biological father, she obviously would have to have been restricting her relationship to Joseph and not her spiritually disadvantaged first husband. It is nonetheless clear that even in such a situation as this, there is a faulty application of the definition of polyandry (based on an interpretation founded in non-eternally based marriages), as Sylvia limited herself to the companionship of one mate.

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/katich-a-tale-of-two-marriage-systems.pdf

BTW, that paper leaves open the possibility that polyandrous relationships may have been consummated, it just points out the evidence for it is lacking. And it puts up the evidence that is there as far as I've been able to find. Is that denying the truth?

Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

That's a bit of hyperbole. If someone is married to a person then by definition it isn't adultery.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda:

That's a bit of hyperbole. If someone is married to a person then by definition it isn't adultery.

Technically it wasn't a doctrine so even spiritually it wasn't a marriage.

[wenglund]

Oh, I wish it were that easy! I guess you and others have a better conduit to Him than myself. I guess you could say I feel somewhat overlooked in that regard.But I'm open to trying it as you explained, asking for revelation , and listening for the answer, obey what I've received and build on that, thanks I'll try it that way!

Please realize that for some people who are having trouble with the direct conduit to God, he will at times use a back-up communication system where he sends "angels" (human and otherwise) to get his message through. And, the delivery of those messages by "angels" aren't always in person, but may be conveyed even by way of message boards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 10, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

Technically it wasn't a doctrine so even spiritually it wasn't a marriage.

So you are saying that Sec 132 doesn't cover sealings that involve women who were married to other men? Therefore even if Joseph understood such sealings to be valid, they were not. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Technically it wasn't a doctrine so even spiritually it wasn't a marriage.

Let's be honest. In your mind, you know better than God. So, what's the point of checking in with him or his servants on this issue?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Please realize that for some people who are having trouble with the direct conduit to God, he will at times use a back-up communication system, where he sends "angels" (human and otherwise) to get his message through. And, the delivery of those messages by "angels" aren't always in person, but may be conveyed even by way of message boards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, He does through you "angels" and I'm feelin' the "tough love" all the time! Edited July 10, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

So you are saying that Sec 132 doesn't cover sealings that involve women who were married to other men? Therefore even if Joseph understood such sealings to be valid, they were not.

I guess JS did say it was adultery unless there is a "holy annointing", sorry, I read it differently the first time.

[Deborah]

Calmoriah and Deborah.... I just have a problem when the apologists give answers that seem to defend the wrongful doing.

Wrong doing in whose eyes? Not God's. However it seems those living today choose to condemn someone based on Presentism and the idea that sex was the main objective of any of these marriages or sealings. I'd be careful in judging a Prophet of God. It is up to God to chastise that prophet if he does wrong.

[why me]

In my opinion having affairs with married women, even goes against section132 in the D & C. And please, it's been established that some were consumated.

So, what you are saying is that these women who were married who also married Joseph Smith committed adultery with Joseph Smith? Is that what you are saying?

Edited July 10, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Wrong doing in whose eyes?

I think what tacenda is saying is these women who were already married who also married Joseph Smith, were committing adultery with Joseph Smith if he and they had relations.

[Tacenda]

Wrong doing in whose eyes? Not God's. However it seems those living today choose to condemn someone based on Presentism and the idea that sex was the main objective of any of these marriages or sealings. I'd be careful in judging a Prophet of God. It is up to God to chastise that prophet if he does wrong.

Well I haven't come to the concluding factor that JS is a true prophet of God. I use to believe this, but since the internet age, not so much anymore. For instance did all of JS prophesies come true? Because in order to be a prophet of God, one of the stipulations according to the bible, was that they must come to fruition. And the bible states to beware of false prophets.

[Calm]

I do not eliminate the possibility that Joseph got it wrong, made some assumptions about how sealings were to be done, what they meant and didn't go back to the Lord to clarify whether or not he should do it a certain way. I don't think from what I've read of the relationships that he did it to take advantage of either the woman or the man (if there were men involved). He seemed to be primarily concerned with setting up eternal relationships.

I just can't get away from the statement of the women and men (but mainly the women for some reason) where they talk about their own spiritual witness that they were to engage in plural marriage.

[Deborah]

For instance did all of JS prophesies come true? Because in order to be a prophet of God, one of the stipulations according to the bible, was that they must come to fruition. And the bible states to beware of false prophets.

Been reading anti sites again? It depends on what prophecies you are referring to. Many of them did and many of them were conditional. All prophecy is in fact conditional as illustrated by Jonah and the city of Nineveh. Certainly this prophecy has been fulfilled:

"Brethren, I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it. It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world."

[wenglund]

Well I haven't come to the concluding factor that JS is a true prophet of God. I use to believe this, but since the internet age, not so much anymore. For instance did all of JS prophesies come true? Because in order to be a prophet of God, one of the stipulations according to the bible, was that they must come to fruition. And the bible states to beware of false prophets.

What is the point of having a God when people like you are bent on deciding for yourself, using whatever selective human-based means (regardless if it is supposedly in the Bible or not) to judge who is a prophet of God or not? If you think you are so smart and knowledgeable as to correctly discern which prophesies have been fulfilled or not, and determine the proportional cut-off point of how many prophesies a person can get right or wrong to be considered a prophet of God, then you really don't need God. You have effectively made yourself god--which I find ironic given your rejection of the LDS belief on deification.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

I don't buy the calumny leveled at Joseph Smith but even if he did commit some public sins, It would be a shame to lose faith in Christ's plan because His prophets are human.

[wenglund]

I don't buy the calumny leveled at Joseph Smith but even if he did commit some public sins, It would be a shame to lose faith in Christ's plan because His prophets are human.

I am not sure yet how to give rep points, so let me just give you a thumbs up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

There is a little arrow pointing up on the right hand lower corner next to a box with a number in it (a zero if no one has given a rep point yet). Click on the arrow.

[ERayR]

That is one sided in my opinion. So FAIR is the only factual authority? The story about Nancy Rigdon is wrong? I highly doubt the author I mentioned would write a book without credible facts. The problem I find with some apologetics is they twist things and mold things to give the appearance that it's all hunky dory. But I will be more diligent in providing more info on the sites I use and reread the board guidelines.Thank you!

As long as you do your research only on sites designed to destroy all things LDS and to believe those things without reservation you will never find factual answers. Your pattern seems to be to go out to one of those sites and find an issue and come back and post it here. Then when that issue is discredited you go out and find another. Rinse and repeat. Let's try and break the cycle. Now instead of one of those sites go to FAIR and find your issue and read about it at FAIR.

[rongo]

For instance did all of JS prophesies come true? Because in order to be a prophet of God, one of the stipulations according to the bible, was that they must come to fruition. And the bible states to beware of false prophets.

I dealt with this so-called "Bible test of a prophet" pretty extensively in a stake/community fireside in our area. See slides 19-24.

http://www.fillthenet.com/Sep2.pdf

In a nutshell, this is an expectation that has been set up by people who want to preclude the possibility of actual prophecy. The "BTOAP" had no actual application in real time "back then," there are numerous "failed/unfulfilled" prophecies in the Bible, and above all ----- I have yet to have an actual "failed" prophecy of Joseph Smith pointed out.

The fireside dealt with the background and assumptions about prophecy/revelation, claimed Mormon failed/false prophecies, polygamy/polyandry/teenage wives, the priesthood ban, etc. It dovetails nicely with a lot of the concerns and defenses on this thread . . .

[Deborah]

Also this quote by Brigham Young is appropriate:

Many persons think if they see a prophet they see one possessing all the keys of the kingdom of God on the earth. This is not so; many persons have prophesied without having any Priesthood on them at all. It is no particular revelation or gift for a person to prophesy. You take a good statesman, for instance, he will tell you what will become of a nation by their actions. He foresees this and that, and knows the results; this is what makes a statesman, and no man is a good statesman unless he can foresee the results of any line of policy that may be pursued. To be a prophet is simply to be a foreteller of future events; but an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, has the keys of the holy Priesthood, and the power thereof is sealed upon his head, and by this he is authorized to proclaim the truth to the people, and if they receive it, well; if not, the sin be upon their own heads.

--Brigham Young, July 11, 1869, JD 13:144.

[Tacenda]

To those that feel I'm only here to stir up a ruckus, I'm certainly not. I'm probably hung up on whether the non Lds Christians are telling the truth when they say that we believe in a different Jesus or we believe the bible to be acceptable only as far as it's translated correctly but the BOM is the most correct book but doesn't have near the evidence the bible has if any at all. Or finding out late in life about Masonry being a large componet in our LDS faith. And finding out that JS was among many that had visions, and he was aware of the many unanswered questions swirling around in those times and then answering them.

Also, the prophecy that he told Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page to go to Canada to sell the copyright of the BOM to a man willing to buy it. And when it didn't happen JS admitted it was a false prophecy. That to me is a character issue and a make profit issue. If it is a religious book that will restore the gospel then why is he selling it? It tells me he realised he'd do better using it to start a religion.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Also, the prophecy that he told Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page to go to Canada to sell the copyright of the BOM to a man willing to buy it. And when it didn't happen JS admitted it was a false prophecy.

You really need to study this stuff better before assuming it is true.

The original document of this has been found. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright

The primary evidence supporting the negative aspects of the Canadian Mission story come from David Whitmer, who was not a participant in the event, and who had left the church many years before. With the discovery of the Hiram Page letter of 1848 showing that the actual participants involved in the trip felt that Joseph Smith delivered an accurate revelation of what would transpire on the Mission, and in fact even found the event uplifting rather than negative, it is evident that no individual contemporary to the event felt that this represented a false prophecy by Joseph Smith. What we do see is excellent evidence in fulfillment of the teachings of Deuteronomy 12 and 18 that Joseph Smith was perceived as a true prophet of God by those involved in the Mission to Canada in early 1830....

Page also makes no mention or even a hint at disappointment in Joseph Smith, nor is there an accusation that the trip was based upon a "false prophecy," so naturally no subsequent "revelation" is noted by Page explaining the mission’s failure.

In Whitmer’s 1887 account we learn for the first time of the supposed post-mission revelation where Joseph Smith is told that some revelations are from God, some from devils, some from men. This account is in all likelihood a fabrication. Unlike his consistent, life-long statements concerning the witness of the Gold Plates, this account, which is probably a second-hand retelling of events 57 years after their occurrence, suddenly appears and is wrong on several of the documentable facts, as well as being inconsistent with the first-hand testimony of Hiram Page, given 40 years earlier than Whitmer and by comparison much closer to the actual event.

For an extended discussion: http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/50.2EhatExtended-8bdbf84c-75af-4c6b-bc53-a42f4ac57518.pdf

It appears to be correct that the revelation was intended to authorize action that would meet the need for money for the printing of the Book of Mormon; thus, in order to more accurately establish the date the revelation was received, it would be helpful to know when it was that the need for such money first arose and where the Prophet was located at various times during the sub- sequent period.....

And attempts at securing and selling a copyright in Canada after the March 26, 1830, United States release date of the Book of Mormon likely would have not been efficacious, for at that point, the work, legally, would have been considered dedicated to the public, and piracy in Canada would have been much more likely without a copyright secured there (if others considered publishing the book to be financially attractive)....

Prior to the existence of international treaties where one country recognizes the copyright protection afforded by the laws of another country, an author’s copyright protection extended only to the borders of the country in which he performed (or authorized others to perform) his acts of printing and publication; the laws of that country were not enforced by the government of the country across the border to protect him in that other jurisdiction. But in pre–Berne Convention times, an author could sell (or assign) “a” copyright in one country and “a” copyright in another country and thus secure to the “copy” protection in each. And doing so in each respective country would, according to the laws of each country, provide postpublication protection within each country....

After publication of the Book of Mormon in the United States, the rights to the book likely would have had no value in Canada. Piracy, on both sides of the border, was common. And in order to give a publisher in Canada incentive to publish the book and forbid others from publishing it without the Prophet’s permission, the natural and legally appropriate action would have been to sell a copyright to a willing buyer in Canada.

A Canadian publisher likely would have then simply published the book either pursuant to a short-run lease197 or pursuant to the purchase of a partial interest in the copyright.

If Joseph wanted to keep the book from being pirated in Canada after it had been published in the US, he needed to get it published in Canada and therefore he needed to find a Canadian publisher and prior to the time it was published in the US (otherwise they could just use the published copy rather than getting a copyright). Selling a copyright to the publisher rather than just giving it to him would have provided funds to help pay for the printing of the BoM in the US. Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

But what about this portion of the FAIR article......

Joseph Smith had been told there were people in Canada willing to buy the copyrights to useful books. Due to the dire financial position of the Church, he decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon. Four men went to Canada. Before leaving, Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with some conditions placed upon their success.

...it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Page

e

& Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea even in securing the Copyright & they shall do it with an eye single to my Glory that it may be the means of bringing souls unto me Salvation through mine only Be{

t

\gotten} Behold I am God I have spoken it

& it is expedient in me

Wherefor I say unto you that ye shall go

to Kingston

seeking me continually through mine only Be{t\gotten} & if ye do this ye shall have my spirit to go with you & ye shall have an addition of all things which is expedient in me. amen & I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell a copyright through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation

&

{

◊

\or} th{

er

\eir} salvation.

The text of the revelation was published in the The Joseph Smith Papers: The Revelations and Translations Series. According to Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian and Recorder, Another interesting development from work on the Revelations and Translations Series has been the identification of a previously unpublished revelation on securing a copyright for the Book of Mormon in Canada. David Whitmer, after he left the Church, recalled that the revelation promised success in selling the copyright, but upon return of the men charged with the duty, Joseph Smith and others were disappointed by what seemed like failure. Historians have relied upon statements of David Whitmer, Hiram Page, and William McLellin for decades but have not had the actual text of the revelation. Revelation Book 1 will provide that. Although we still do not know the whole story, particularly Joseph Smith’s own view of the situation, we do know that calling the divine communication a “failed revelation” is not warranted. The Lord’s directive clearly conditions the successful sale of the copyright on the worthiness of those seeking to make the sale as well as on the spiritual receptivity of the potential purchasers. ^[1

[wenglund]

Given that we are now on page 18, it might be useful to recap:

On the one hand, the Church has trained educators who clearly understand the principles of effective instructional design, who have been called by inspired leaders to develop a curriculum that will facilitate the fulfillment of the Church mission. Using their knowledge and authority, and through the guidance of the Spirit, they have developed lessons that not only incorporate relevant material, but utilizes the limited lesson periods to the best advantage in meeting the lesson objectives, but also in turn the over-all objective of the Church.

On the other hand, we have certain members and former members here, who tend not to be professional educators, who evidently not only haven't a clue about effective instructional design, but also seem inattentive to what the gospel is all about and how the gospel works, who haven't been called of God, though, not surprisingly, have jumped to the inane and false conclusion that the lack of inclusion of certain gospel irrelevancies in Sunday lesson material somehow constitutes a "cover up" or "hiding history."

But, wait, there's more. From their position of relative ignorance and banality, they yet believe they know better than the trained professionals and those who have been called of God what ought to be taught members or not, and they have presumptuously appointed themselves as ark-steadiers of Church's curriculum. And, even though their ignorance and banality has been pointed out to them time and again, these poor souls continue to press forward with their demands for including the gospel irrelevancies in the lessons, suffering under the mistaken delusion that doing so will somehow "inoculate" some members from a loss of faith.

And, just when you thought things couldn't get worse, this thread has provided us with several instances where members, when they first learned about the gospel irrelevancies, react emotionally and irrationally and determined to jettison the whole of the gospel. So, far from inoculating against loss of faith, the disclosure of these gospel irrelevancies actually caused the opposite--though insipidly. This means that the very irrelevant things that the ark-steadiers demand be taught in the Church, presumably to prevent the loss of faith, have been shown here to do otherwise.

Now, if this nonsense doesn't encourage people to mind their own business and stick to things about which they have a clue, or at the very least give them pause, then I don't know what will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-