Joseph Smith Iii

[EllenMaksoud]

Okay, that is weird, the "remnant" I mean. What/how people believe is a constantly amazing thing. Justifying JS's plurality of wives doctrine requires hoops inside of hoops to jump through. It doesn't hang together otherwise. And I just don't think that anything "God" does requires that kind of finagling....

We attended an RLDS church for a time in 1974 in Portland, Oregon. I do not remember a lot about it except to say that it was nothing like the LDS church. I understand that the RLDS no longer use the BOM. What's the point? In my research before I joined the LDS church, I looked at what what happened before the LDS came to Salt Lake City.

When I was growing up, my mother would have "attacks" once in a while and rant and rave about her father and the Church of Christ. She'd call them unspeakable things and hated them with venom. Interestingly, her Father was a lay pastor, elder, brother or something. She was most distressed because he habitually went out on Friday or Saturday night get drunk, and come home and beat grandma, and the children up. To my rememberance, she never called them Mormon. Grandma was born in Arkansas and during the depression the family followed the fruit harvest across the south and eventually to LA, California, where Mother was born. As I was growing up, we were Easter Christians, but Mother could never attend church with out ranting about he Father until the day she died.

Interestingly, a site called 4mormon.org lists several different splinter groups called variations of "Church of Christ".

I also know that members of my family on Mother's side were Salt Lake Mormons around 1860.

[bluebell]

There's also a prominent protestant church called The Church of Christ as well, so it would be easy to get them confused.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There's also a prominent protestant church called The Church of Christ as well, so it would be easy to get them confused.

And, both are offshoots of the early LDS Church as well.

[Alan]

I believe there is a "Church of Christ" that has no connection with the Mormon movement.

[gkearney]

We attended an RLDS church for a time in 1974 in Portland, Oregon. I do not remember a lot about it except to say that it was nothing like the LDS church. I understand that the RLDS no longer use the BOM. What's the point?

In this statement you are wrong. The RLDS or Community of Christ still use the Book of Mormon, they still publish it and indeed they own the printer's manuscript which is the oldest full manuscript of the Book of Mormon that exists; the scribes manuscripts having mostly been destroyed. If you go to Independence to the temple there they will show you that manuscript which make up the central part of their historical exhibits their.

Now the RLDS Church has never used the Book of Mormon in the same way as the LDS Church has. Rather in the RLDS tradition the Book of Mormon is viewed more as a physical proof of the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. This was the way that many early member's viewed the text and is why you do not find many early sermons quoting from the Book of Mormon as we do today.

Nothing, however upsets RLDS Church members more than for LDS members to say or suggest that they have somehow stopped using or accepting the Book of Mormon. A sacred text that they feel they have preserved and defended for their entire existence and for which their ancestors in many cases gave their lives for. No one visiting their sites today with the etchings of the Sacred Grove in glass at the temple or the central display of the manuscript in the temple should have any questions as to their devotion to and protection of the Book of Mormon. Just because they do not use it the way we do does not lessen their attachment to it. Joseph Smith himself seldom quoted from its pages in his sermons.

[EllenMaksoud]

In this statement you are wrong. The RLDS or Community of Christ still use the Book of Mormon, they still publish it and indeed they own the printer's manuscript which is the oldest full manuscript of the Book of Mormon that exists; the scribes manuscripts having mostly been destroyed. If you go to Independence to the temple there they will show you that manuscript which make up the central part of their historical exhibits their.

Now the RLDS Church has never used the Book of Mormon in the same way as the LDS Church has. Rather in the RLDS tradition the Book of Mormon is viewed more as a physical proof of the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. This was the way that many early member's viewed the text and is why you do not find many early sermons quoting from the Book of Mormon as we do today.

Nothing, however upsets RLDS Church members more than for LDS members to say or suggest that they have somehow stopped using or accepting the Book of Mormon. A sacred text that they feel they have preserved and defended for their entire existence and for which their ancestors in many cases gave their lives for. No one visiting their sites today with the etchings of the Sacred Grove in glass at the temple or the central display of the manuscript in the temple should have any questions as to their devotion to and protection of the Book of Mormon. Just because they do not use it the way we do does not lessen their attachment to it. Joseph Smith himself seldom quoted from its pages in his sermons.

I am wrong? That does not surprise me, and should not surprise anyone else. I was simply stating things to the best of my memory.

[BlueDreams]

I am wrong? That does not surprise me, and should not surprise anyone else. I was simply stating things to the best of my memory.

According to what I've read (I've been curious and googling stuff....man, what did people do before the internet?) it's kinda a complicated relationship from what I've read. From an article I was perusing from an interview:

I am asked this question a lot by LDS people. Inevitably, they say, “I have heard that the CofC no longer uses the Book of Mormon.” Yes and no. Some no longer use it as frequently as they did in past decades; a North American congregation may or may not use the Book of Mormon in worship services on any given Sunday. Tens of thousands of CofC members have never used the Book of Mormon, such as members in Haiti or most in Africa. These people joined our community for other reasons (the worth of persons as an ideal, lay ministry, respect for indigenous expressions of the gospel, peace and justice advocacy, or

belief in spiritual gifts, etc.) but not for the Book of Mormon. However, the Community of Christ officially recognizes the Book of Mormon as an additional Scriptural witness that supports the Bible’s testimony of Jesus Christ. The Community of Christ lectionary includes Book of Mormon references along with Bible and Doctrine and Covenants references. Use of the Book of Mormon varies by region, congregation, and individual.

http://bycommonconse...ter-day-saints/

Its definitely not the way lds view and impliment it though.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 21, 2013 by BlueDreams

[EllenMaksoud]

According to what I've read (I've been curious and googling stuff....man, what did people do before the internet?) it's kinda a complicated relationship from what I've read. From an article I was perusing from an interview:

http://bycommonconse...ter-day-saints/

Its definitely not the way lds view and impliment it though.

With luv,

BD

Being rather new, I am not sure of the difference. We use the Bom in study and service. I now see that many mormons do not have a lot of contact with the Bible but know the BoM very well. Some day I hope to have such facility with it.

From what I remember, IMHO, I think the scholastic standard in the LDS church is higher than in the RLDS. Just saying.

[BlueDreams]

Being rather new, I am not sure of the difference. We use the Bom in study and service. I now see that many mormons do not have a lot of contact with the Bible but know the BoM very well. Some day I hope to have such facility with it.

Not a problem: The difference is mostly in implementation and the overall language used in describing. If I had to give my general feel while reading the reasoning about the BoM from an RLDS perspective I would say it sounds like they see the bible as more foundational and the BoM as nice extra writ that you may or may not use....similar to other inspired writings. I get the feeling that its more parallel to LDS general conferance articles 10-15 years ago: Some people still read them, some quotes may still be used, and certain fundamental ideas shared are still being used today. Also you can believe whatever you want about a GC article way back when...you can disagree with something said, and no one's really going to do anything about it. It's not necessary to believe in it 100%.

It is true that some in the LDS faith are not familiar with the bible and I think that's somewhat sad....especially since the BoM testifies of the veracity of it and quotes from it extensively. But the difference in implementation is that the Book is widely available, used, and gets two years in sunday school out of a 4 yr cycle. If we treated the Bible as it's mentioned in the quote above....it would mean that there would be congregations that rarely use it in class and congregations where you wouldn't even find one used at all. Both the BoM and Bible are necessary components to what it means to be an active member of the LDS faith. This criterion is different for the CoC.

From what I remember, IMHO, I think the scholastic standard in the LDS church is higher than in the RLDS. Just saying.

I have no idea, though it wouldn't surprise me if it did...the LDS church also has more infrastructure, monetary and material resources, etc in order to do so. The RLDS is pretty small in number. I don't know if it would be the fairest comparison in the first place.

With luv,

BD

[EllenMaksoud]

Not a problem: The difference is mostly in implementation and the overall language used in describing. If I had to give my general feel while reading the reasoning about the BoM from an RLDS perspective I would say it sounds like they see the bible as more foundational and the BoM as nice extra writ that you may or may not use....similar to other inspired writings. I get the feeling that its more parallel to LDS general conferance articles 10-15 years ago: Some people still read them, some quotes may still be used, and certain fundamental ideas shared are still being used today. Also you can believe whatever you want about a GC article way back when...you can disagree with something said, and no one's really going to do anything about it. It's not necessary to believe in it 100%.

It is true that some in the LDS faith are not familiar with the bible and I think that's somewhat sad....especially since the BoM testifies of the veracity of it and quotes from it extensively. But the difference in implementation is that the Book is widely available, used, and gets two years in sunday school out of a 4 yr cycle. If we treated the Bible as it's mentioned in the quote above....it would mean that there would be congregations that rarely use it in class and congregations where you wouldn't even find one used at all. Both the BoM and Bible are necessary components to what it means to be an active member of the LDS faith. This criterion is different for the CoC.

I have no idea, though it wouldn't surprise me if it did...the LDS church also has more infrastructure, monetary and material resources, etc in order to do so. The RLDS is pretty small in number. I don't know if it would be the fairest comparison in the first place.

With luv,

BD

Well, it is complicated. I was EV for 32 years and then became Muslim. I was frustrated and did not know of the LDS. So, when the time came for me to meet the LDS Sisters, it was a great comfort to me to see that the Bible could be used to validate the BOM, or at least, I did. I also saw great similarity between Islam and Mormonisim. That was further illustration to me that Heavenly Father was once again speaking to me.

Once I began to learn the Bible in 1974, I always felt that Heavenly Father continued to speak to us after the Apostles were gone; I knew it. So, when I left the EV, whom I considered to be fallen at the time, I encountered Muhammad PBUH and the holy Qur'an. For me it was further illustration that Heavenly Father had kept talking to us after Jesus Christ. Those who study diligently can see signs that like Christianity, Islam quickly became apostate after Muhammad PBUH died. It is sad that so few people are willing to think critically about these things today.

So, in my opinion, the next time that Heavenly Father helped us was in the 1400-1550 era. This was the time of Wycliffe and later Gutenberg, and still later Martin Luther.

So, following that line, it should be no surprise at all that Heavenly Father tried again with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

A worrisome question to me is: what is to stop the LDS church from going apostate? I do not have the answer to that. Will the Prophet, the twelve and the 70 prevent that? I hope so.

[Alan]

A worrisome question to me is: what is to stop the LDS church from going apostate? I do not have the answer to that. Will the Prophet, the twelve and the 70 prevent that? I hope so.

Only the dedication, prayers and righteousness of the people.

[Alan]

In this statement you are wrong. The RLDS or Community of Christ still use the Book of Mormon, they still publish it and indeed they own the printer's manuscript which is the oldest full manuscript of the Book of Mormon that exists; the scribes manuscripts having mostly been destroyed. If you go to Independence to the temple there they will show you that manuscript which make up the central part of their historical exhibits their.

Now the RLDS Church has never used the Book of Mormon in the same way as the LDS Church has. Rather in the RLDS tradition the Book of Mormon is viewed more as a physical proof of the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. This was the way that many early member's viewed the text and is why you do not find many early sermons quoting from the Book of Mormon as we do today.

Nothing, however upsets RLDS Church members more than for LDS members to say or suggest that they have somehow stopped using or accepting the Book of Mormon. A sacred text that they feel they have preserved and defended for their entire existence and for which their ancestors in many cases gave their lives for. No one visiting their sites today with the etchings of the Sacred Grove in glass at the temple or the central display of the manuscript in the temple should have any questions as to their devotion to and protection of the Book of Mormon. Just because they do not use it the way we do does not lessen their attachment to it. Joseph Smith himself seldom quoted from its pages in his sermons.

I once spoke in a CofC sunday service.

I based my sermon on characters in the BoM and read from it's pages. I remember using the Psalm of Nephi, and the confession of Alma the younger quite extensively. I recall the Pastor getting up and thanking me for reminding them of the Book of Mormon and the wonderful accounts it contains. Afterwards, a number of people approached me to express similar sentiments. One youngster told me he was going to ask his dad to get him a copy of the BoM so he could look at it and read from it. He didn't have one, nor had he ever read from it. His father was a paid minister in the church, a seventy, and the equivalent of one of our GA's.

[Sleeper Cell]

Well, it is complicated. I was EV for 32 years and then became Muslim .... I encountered Muhammad PBUH and the holy Qur'an. For me it was further illustration that Heavenly Father had kept talking to us after Jesus Christ.

I am deeply impressed that you go out of your way to show respect for your former religion by continuing to use the traditional honorifics for its founder and its scriptures. It is a pity that many ex-Mormons don’t seem willing do the same.

FWIW, Hugh Nibley once remarked that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an inspired man and a prophet to his people. Bro. Nibley did not feel that saying this diminished the authority or the unique calling of the President of the Church in any way.

[EllenMaksoud]

I am deeply impressed that you go out of your way to show respect for your former religion by continuing to use the traditional honorifics for its founder and its scriptures. It is a pity that many ex-Mormons don’t seem willing do the same.

FWIW, Hugh Nibley once remarked that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an inspired man and a prophet to his people. Bro. Nibley did not feel that saying this diminished the authority or the unique calling of the President of the Church in any way.

Shukran Jazillian (Thank You,) Mashallah (All good comes from God). I strongly believe that our church is the restored church of Jesus Christ, and the more I study, the more I feel that our citizenship is in the kingdom of God. We are not simply Americans, Brazilians, Canadians, or Brits but of the whole world and beyond. My allegiance is to Heavenly Father and his purposes.

[Questing Beast]

He married old and young alike...there are easier way to satisfy "biological drives" as you put it, without the binding aspects of marriage. False religious leaders have done so throughout time...You are seeking to put a very large and complicated issue into a very small box. Not to mention Joseph got Emma "with child" 11 times, but not a single one of the other 34 women to whom he was sealed...point being, we "don't" have enough data.

Who is saying he was looking for an easy way to sow his oats? That would deny his religious convictions, i.e. be sinful. He spoke truly about himself when he said that a desire to sin was not in his nature. Yet he had evident strong biological "urges". Else he would not have fallen for the mistake of polygamy. The way out of his predicament imposed by his dual nature, natural and religious urges, was in the Old Testament. The complete structure of "patriarchal marriage" came over time. He believed in his prophetic calling. So everything new was seen as revelation. I don't know to what extent he believed in a literal event with an angel commanding him and threatening with a drawn sword. "Swords" seem to have vanished entirely from the Church's idiom since the 1940's. But in the 1830's and 40's they were very much "in". Joseph Smith's religion was more Old Testament in character than New Testament. "God" to Joseph Smith threatened with "destruction" for disobedience and did not manifest much of the virtue of patience. Joseph Smith did not brook refusal without coercion and threats in the name of the Lord. Usually the women/girls' resistance collapsed under the combination of appeal to the "soul mate", promise of exaltation beyond their greatest dreams, and threat.

You bring up the issue of "issue" yet again. But as you admit there isn't enough evidence. This works both ways. And all we need is ONE proven descendant out of wedlock, i.e. not Emma's, to prove Joseph Smith to have been an "adulterer", from a non Mormon or critical pov, i.e. sexually active with one or more of his plural wives, which will be quite sufficient to discount his "prophet" status for countless critics of his religion-making and assertions to be a prophet of God. Of course, the faithful, the conservative Mormons in our midst, will ascribe any proof that he was sexually active to be nothing of concern, since they knew this about him the whole time....

Edited February 21, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Calm]

Yet he had evident strong biological "urges". Else he would not have fallen for the mistake of polygamy.

You must assume it was a mistake to prove the first, if it wasn't a mistake than his "evident strong biological 'urges'" aren't so evident.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Who is saying he was looking for an easy way to sow his oats?

Now it just seems you are trying to be vulgar. Maybe you should remember many here love the man including me. I don't understand any who practiced polygamy, nor my bigamist bio-father...who abandoned us to die on the streets of Atlanta, in lieu of his second wife whom no one knew of, but those who God did not condemn and chose as his people, I will reserve judgement for now. BTW, marriage to each would hardly be seeking a way to make it "easy". Edited February 22, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee