Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[JLHPROF]

You're a very bright person who has studied these issues far more in-depth than I EVER will.  As a result, I continually glean insights from your historical and scriptural citations.  But YOUR spiritual witness, by definition, can do nothing to aid MY understanding of the truth.  HF has not provided me with that witness.  So should I simply accept the one He has provided for you or should I continue to "study it out in my mind"?

 

The scriptures are clear that to gain answers from God we "ask in faith, nothing wavering".   I learned that one from Joseph Smith too.  The alternative is man's wisdom which means very little.

 

Yes, you have to study it out in your mind, but that's where doubt originates.  Try asking GOD if he thinks Joseph Smith fell or polygamy was a mistake, or SSM or OW would be approved by him.  I think there is a little more doubt than faith in your questioning of God's prophets and a little too much mortal perspective and not enough relying on HF to answer.  Perhaps it's time to stop studying it out in your mind and ask God his opinion on your questions.

 

But now I feel like I've judged you too much, so I apologise.  But I will ALWAYS passionately defend Joseph and Brigham against naysayers.

Edited July 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[ERayR]

The scriptures are clear that to gain answers from God we "ask in faith, nothing wavering".   I learned that one from Joseph Smith too.  The alternative is man's wisdom which means very little.

 

Yes, you have to study it out in your mind, but that's where doubt originates.  Try asking GOD if he thinks Joseph Smith fell or polygamy was a mistake, or SSM or OW would be approved by him.  I think there is a little more doubt than faith in your questioning of God's prophets and a little too much mortal perspective and not enough relying on HF to answer.  Perhaps it's time to stop studying it out in your mind and ask God his opinion on your questions.

 

But now I feel like I've judged you too much, so I apologise.  But I will ALWAY passionately defend Joseph and Brigham against naysayers.

 

I would add that you must listen to the answer, no matter how it comes to you.  As my daughter-in-law once said don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

[why me]

I'M SORRY BUT...BEGIN RANT!

 

I am getting more than a little irritated at some of the comments being made about Joseph Smith by certain so-called members.

I am also very sick of the "blame Bro. Brigham" trend that creeps through our Church ranks.

.

I have had the same problem and challenged this poster too. But I was banned from the thread when I challenged this poster to give an example of what the church should be. . But I must admit that this is the strangest member that I have ever come across on the internet. I have to wonder if this poster is on the up and up. I can only take this poster's word for their status. My gut feeling cannot be divulged but.....lets hope that this poster is legit and not a troll. We need to have faith in the poster and keep calm and post on.

 

My advice would be simple to this poster. Pray with a good intent and receive a witness.

Edited July 23, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

You and I will have to disagree on whether he should have publicly denied polygamy (if it was truly a commandment from God).  I see nothing in scripture that justifies lying; even if people will persecute you for telling the truth.

Maybe you'll pardon me if, in the future, my home is invaded by murderous thugs and I tell them nobody else is home, even though my wife and children are hidden in the basement.

[why me]

You're a very bright person who has studied these issues far more in-depth than I EVER will.  As a result, I continually glean insights from your historical and scriptural citations.  But YOUR spiritual witness, by definition, can do nothing to aid MY understanding of the truth.  HF has not provided me with that witness.  So should I simply accept the one He has provided for you or should I continue to "study it out in my mind"?

I wouldn't study it but pray about it. It worked for me. Also, it is good to read the testimonies from the past. The testimonies of the plural wives of JS is a good start. Not to mention the tesimonies of past prophets etc. And then ask HF for your own witness. But stuying it out may not be the best way to do it. Just pray and keep it simple.

[why me]

Maybe you'll pardon me if, in the future, my home is invaded by murderous thugs and I tell them nobody else is home, even though my wife and children are hidden in the basement.

Of course if JS did tell the truth to the public and many members were murdered because of it, critics would now be saying that Joseph did not care for the members but only cared for himself by making it public. It would be called narcissism. But because he did what was best for the members, he is duly criticized by people for doing what he thought was best.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course if JS did tell the truth to the public and many members were murdered because of it, critics would now be saying that Joseph did not care for the members but only cared for himself by making it public. It would be called narcissism. But because he did what was best for the members, he is duly criticized by people for doing what he thought was best.

Indeed.

 

Of course, I always give such criticism the respect and consideration it deserves.

[mormonnewb]

Maybe you'll pardon me if, in the future, my home is invaded by murderous thugs and I tell them nobody else is home, even though my wife and children are hidden in the basement.

 

That is PRECISELY the situation that Christians were faced with in the first two centuries of the Common Era.  Renounce your belief in Christ (lie) or die.  And over 1 MILLION of them chose to tell the truth in the face of certain death.

 

And by the way, JS followed their example.  To my knowledge, he didn't deny the truth of the BoM or the restored Gospel.  And neither did the other saints who were eventually subject to an extermination order.  The saints were not people to shrink from the truth because it would make them unpopular.

 

So why was this different?

Edited July 23, 2014 by mormonnewb

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Of course if JS did tell the truth to the public and many members were murdered because of it, critics would now be saying that Joseph did not care for the members but only cared for himself by making it public. It would be called narcissism. But because he did what was best for the members, he is duly criticized by people for doing what he thought was best.

 

Personally, I am not of the opinion that honesty is always the best policy, but it doesn't help Joseph's case that Gospel Principles teaches Honesty in the following way:

Lying is intentionally deceiving others.... When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

 

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

 

People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to protect themselves and to have others think well of them....

 

These excuses and many more are given as reasons for dishonesty. To the Lord, there are no acceptable reasons. When we excuse ourselves, we cheat ourselves and the Spirit of God ceases to be with us. We become more and more unrighteous.

[ERayR]

That is PRECISELY the situation that Christians were faced with in the first two centuries of the Common Era.  Renounce your belief in Christ (lie) or die.  And over 1 MILLION of them chose to tell the truth in the face of certain death.

 

And by the way, JS followed their example.  To my knowledge, he didn't deny the truth of the BoM or the restored Gospel.  And neither did the other saints who were eventually subject to an extermination order.  The saints were people to shrink from the truth because it would make them unpopular.

 

So why was this different?

 

Perhaps to buy time by delaying the additional persecution caused by this?  I don't know.  What I do know is that God did not condemn him and I for one will not second guess God.

[JLHPROF]

That is PRECISELY the situation that Christians were faced with in the first two centuries of the Common Era.  Renounce your belief in Christ (lie) or die.  And over 1 MILLION of them chose to tell the truth in the face of certain death.

 

And by the way, JS followed their example.  To my knowledge, he didn't deny the truth of the BoM or the restored Gospel.  And neither did the other saints who were eventually subject to an extermination order.  The saints were not people to shrink from the truth because it would make them unpopular.

 

So why was this different?

 

Really?  Why was it different?

 

Pearls before swine - Matthew 7:6.  The same reason we don't run around in our temple clothing.  The same reason that outsiders are not permitted to witness temple weddings or temple prayers.  The same reason that God doesn't reveal every truth to all mankind upfront.  The list goes on and one.

 

Not every belief is for public consumption like the scriptures and first principles.  That included polygamy.  Those who could handle it were taught it.  That's how it has always been with the important parts of the gospel.

If God had wanted Joseph to proclaim polygamy from the rooftops, he would have.  Brigham et al certainly did.  But the restoration of a most sacred principle was not for the public to judge or view.

 

Joseph kept the Savior's teaching "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

[Kind Debater]

Really?  Why was it different?

 

Pearls before swine - Matthew 7:6.  The same reason we don't run around in our temple clothing.  The same reason that outsiders are not permitted to witness temple weddings or temple prayers.  The same reason that God doesn't reveal every truth to all mankind upfront.  The list goes on and one.

Prior to Joseph Smith, when did God give a general command to his people that was to be kept secret?

I agree with MormonNewb, there is a big difference between keeping a command secret and outright lying about it. If God wanted the persecution due to polygamy delayed or wanted to protect the LDS church, he could have done so without Joseph's "help" by lying about it. Just as he could have kept Abraham and Sarah safe without Abraham telling Sarah to misrepresent their relationship.

(BTW, I too would lie if it were a case of the Nazis knocking on my door when I had Jews hidden my house, etc. Maybe that's wrong but that's probably what I would do. But in Abraham's case, he was assuming that people would kill him to get Sarah rather than being faced with an actual threat.)

[Analytics]

I think that in answer to your first question would depend on the teacher of a sunday school class. He or she is perfectly able to convey the possiblity that that section does contain the idea that JS practiced polygamy. We do know that the section did put forth the idea of polygamy. To my understanding, emma did not like that revelation but this could be folklore. I do believe that the saints knew that joseph was practicing polygamy. I do not believe that such a secret could be kept in check since many of the plural wives relatives knew of it since joseph would clear it with them first. Word must have gotten around. However, publically, it was denied in order to protect the saints against the mobs if they were to discover the secret.

 

William's problem was that he attempted to make it public which would have threatend the lives of the saints. Mobs were more than willing to come into nauvoo and burn the mormons out. Thus, Law and his paper was a threat to public order. Let me put it this way: if you were a saint in nauvoo would you want Law's paper to be printed? Would you feel fear if the gentiles surrounding nauvoo were reading his paper? Would you be concerned for your children?

We do in fact know that Emma hated polygamy. When the original copy of D&C 132 was presented to Emma, she threw it in the fire.

 

Joseph Smith was hated for his political and military decisions 100 times more than he was hated for his doctrine. If he would have made wise decisions that were intended to keep the Saints safe, he would have done what the Church has since learned: stay out of politics.

 

The LDS Church currently isn't loved by a lot of folks for its position on same-sex marriage. But the hate would be infinitely worse if Thomas S. Monson became the governor of Utah, announced revelations of how the Saints should vote, implored the state legislature to declare the Salt Lake Tribune a nuisance and destroy their printing press, declared that Utah law preempts federal law, and activated the National Guard. 

[thatjimguy]

What rationalizations for his behavior do you see? I think that most members do not see him as perfect since he was just a man. But what imperfections should the church stress? Can you name any? As a human being he became depressed especially when he saw close friends leave him. He did get angry like any human being and had fights with his wife. Should the church stress these facts? I think that most members understand his public denials of polygamy. Why would he want the blood of his fellow saints on his hands if he made the announcement publically? And when should all this be taught? Should there be a lesson on joseph's imperfections?

 

I would say the same imperfections of caliber that any other prophet had, enough to show where they fell. That was the point of the Bible anyway, to document these things. No, not to bring ever trivial flaw out, but to make sure that he is not regarded with such esteem that he is not regarded as more than human. Actually, I would prefer that no trivial misconduct be brought in so the light can focus on the stuff that matters.

 

"Why Me"...I'll bet you know a lot of him. If you were given a chance to list the imperfections, which ones would you choose? 

[USU78]

We do in fact know that Emma hated polygamy. When the original copy of D&C 132 was presented to Emma, she threw it in the fire.

 

Joseph Smith was hated for his political and military decisions 100 times more than he was hated for his doctrine. If he would have made wise decisions that were intended to keep the Saints safe, he would have done what the Church has since learned: stay out of politics.

 

The LDS Church currently isn't loved by a lot of folks for its position on same-sex marriage. But the hate would be infinitely worse if Thomas S. Monson became the governor of Utah, announced revelations of how the Saints should vote, implored the state legislature to declare the Salt Lake Tribune a nuisance and destroy their printing press, declared that Utah law preempts federal law, and activated the National Guard. 

 

Presentism all over the place in this here post.

 

It was the Baptist Minster of Carthage that led the semi-official besiegers of Nauvoo who were cannonading the city.  This chumminess between creedal Christianity and County/State Government never gets brought up, does it?  Yet so it was [source:  IL's snake-of-a-governor's report of the IL Mormon War].  Yet you choose only to speak to JSJr's mayoralty and, by implication, presidential candidacy.  Why is this so?

 

Yet Churches are entitled to speak up on matters of concern to them, and Churchmen, lay and clerical, are entitled as citizens to speak up and be involved in public affairs.  Just because it is presently fashionable to embrace an all-else-excluding radical materialistism, which specifically seeks to exclude all mention of religion and religiosity and religious thought from the public square doesn't mean I and folks like me have to suffer it.

 

JSJr was entitled to be elected by his constituents.

Once elected, he was entitled to act in the office to which he was elected.

As a religious leader, he was entitled to encourage his flock to vote in support of matters of interest to the Church.

 

Ain't nuthin' wrong with any of that.

 

Unless you're a murderous mob looking for an excuse to cut throats.

[Analytics]

Really?  Why was it different?

 

Pearls before swine - Matthew 7:6.  The same reason we don't run around in our temple clothing...

 

 

Do your scriptures say something to the effect, "Inasmuch as the Church has been accused of the practice of wearing special temple clothing, we declare that all temple worship happens only in the Sunday-best suits and dresses we wear to Church."

 

Has the prophet explained that he can prove that nobody wears special clothing in the temple?

 

Do you tell investigators and new members that the rumors of special clothing are all baseless, and point to the denial in your scriptures of special temple clothing as proof that there is in fact no special clothing?

 

If somebody joins the Church believing what he was told and what the scriptures say about no special temple clothing, and then eventually finds out the truth and gets upset about being lied to, do you excommunicate him and accuse him of being an apostate who wants to murder the Saints?

[Analytics]

Presentism all over the place in this here post.

 

It was the Baptist Minster of Carthage that led the semi-official besiegers of Nauvoo who were cannonading the city.  This chumminess between creedal Christianity and County/State Government never gets brought up, does it?  Yet so it was [source:  IL's snake-of-a-governor's report of the IL Mormon War].  Yet you choose only to speak to JSJr's mayoralty and, by implication, presidential candidacy.  Why is this so?

 

Yet Churches are entitled to speak up on matters of concern to them, and Churchmen, lay and clerical, are entitled as citizens to speak up and be involved in public affairs.  Just because it is presently fashionable to embrace an all-else-excluding radical materialistism, which specifically seeks to exclude all mention of religion and religiosity and religious thought from the public square doesn't mean I and folks like me have to suffer it.

 

JSJr was entitled to be elected by his constituents.

Once elected, he was entitled to act in the office to which he was elected.

As a religious leader, he was entitled to encourage his flock to vote in support of matters of interest to the Church.

 

Ain't nuthin' wrong with any of that.

 

Unless you're a murderous mob looking for an excuse to cut throats.

 

Is there anything wrong with telling a politican that you will deliver him the vote of your city in exchange for legal advice?

 

If you do go ahead and promise a politician that you will deliver him the vote of your city, is there anything wrong with saying that God revealed to your brother that the Saints should vote the other way?

 

Is there anything wrong with declaring that City law preempts state and federal law? 

 

Is there anything wrong with declaring that state and federal marshals can't arrest arrest people in your city without the written approval of the mayor?

 

Is there anything wrong with saying that if a sate or federal marshal tries to arrest somebody in your city without approval from the mayor, that the state or federal marshal shall be subject to imprisonment for life?

 

That if the above happened, is there anything wrong with the city law stating that the governor has no authority to pardon the state or federal official who was imprisoned for doing his job in the city?

 

Is there anything wrong with approaching married women and asking them to become your spiritual wife?

 

Is there anything wrong with the mayor/general/prophet of an American city-state being annointed king?

 

Is there anything wrong with holding a trial not against the editor or owner of a paper, but against the press itself?

 

Is there anything wrong with the mayor/general/prophet destroying an American newspaper that dared critize him?

 

Just curious.

[omni]

Maybe you'll pardon me if, in the future, my home is invaded by murderous thugs and I tell them nobody else is home, even though my wife and children are hidden in the basement.

 

Lying to your wife about marrying 15-20 women is equivalent to a father lying to a murderous thug?

[CV75]

we simply acknowledge that even great men of faith can sometimes lose their way.

Hold on a minute.

 

I wouldn’t call Abraham and Joseph Smith liars or cowards or immoral any more than I would call Nephi a murderer. Given all else they were commanded to do (and obeyed), it is more reasonable to assume that Abraham and Joseph simply followed what they were commanded to do than to assume that they were dishonorable. The most reasonable thing to do anyway is to assume that we haven’t all the information, whether we are inclined to praise them as servants of God or to accuse them of wrongdoing.

 

I wouldn't assume so-and-so has lost his way just because great men of faith can sometimes lose their way.

 

I find it interesting that true and abiding faith is not based on mere assumptions, but a faith crisis as described in this thread is.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Indeed.

 

Of course, I always give such criticism the respect and consideration it deserves.

 

 

Of course if JS did tell the truth to the public and many members were murdered because of it, critics would now be saying that Joseph did not care for the members but only cared for himself by making it public. It would be called narcissism. But because he did what was best for the members, he is duly criticized by people for doing what he thought was best.

If LDS history is true on this then he publicly slandered men who told the truth and filed false court cases against the same.

 

[Analytics]

Presentism all over the place in this here post.

 

 

...said in response to my claim that Joseph Smith was hated 100 times more for his politics and military than he was for his religion.

 

I've got to ask, was Thomas Ford also guilty of presentism when he said the following in 1854?

 

 

But the great cause of popular fury was, that the Mormons at several preceding elections, had cast their vote as a unit thereby making the fact apparent, that no one could aspire to the honors or offices of the country within the sphere of their influence, without their approbation and votes. It appears to be one of the principles by which they insist upon being governed as a community, to act as a unit in all matters of government and religion. They express themselves to be fearful that if division should be encouraged in politics, it would soon extend to their religion, and rend their church with schism and into sects.

This seems to me to be an unfortunate view of the subject, and more unfortunate in practice, as I am well satisfied that it must be the fruitful source of excitement, violence, and mobocracy, whilst it is persisted in. It is indeed unfortunate for their peace that they do not divide in elections, according to their individual preferences or political principles, like other people.

This one principle and practice of theirs arrayed against them in deadly hostility all aspirants for office who were not sure of their support, all who have been unsuccessful in elections, and all who were too proud to court their influence, with all their friends and connections. -Ford, Tomas, A History of Illinois pages 329-330 

Edited July 24, 2014 by Analytics

[Calm]

Prior to Joseph Smith, when did God give a general command to his people that was to be kept secret?

According to the Bible, the enslaved Israelites were basically told to lie to the Egyptians about leaving for good and instead pretended they were only going into the desert to worship, never hinting they planned to just keep going. And that secret included 'borrowing' the riches of the Egyptians so they could properly honour God.

[JLHPROF]

Do your scriptures say something to the effect, "Inasmuch as the Church has been accused of the practice of wearing special temple clothing, we declare that all temple worship happens only in the Sunday-best suits and dresses we wear to Church."

 

Has the prophet explained that he can prove that nobody wears special clothing in the temple?

 

Do you tell investigators and new members that the rumors of special clothing are all baseless, and point to the denial in your scriptures of special temple clothing as proof that there is in fact no special clothing?

 

If somebody joins the Church believing what he was told and what the scriptures say about no special temple clothing, and then eventually finds out the truth and gets upset about being lied to, do you excommunicate him and accuse him of being an apostate who wants to murder the Saints?

 

You are referring to the manifesto obviously. 

Your issue seems to be with lying about polygamy as proof it was wrong.  If I am reading this correctly you don't consider the denials of polygamy to be the equivalent protection of sacred practices as the secrecy of the temple practice, because one required "lying" and the other is just kept "quiet".

 

I personally say that it is necessary to protect the most sacred from the views of those who would scorn it.  Sometimes that means transgressing a lesser law.

And as far as the member who resents "being lied to" about polygamy, well I say again, it is not a secret, it is not hidden (although it is often ignored).  Anyone who wants to know about Joseph Smith and polygamy can find it very easily.  Type Joseph Smith into google and the 4th suggestion is Joseph Smith Wives.  Blaming lazy ignorance on Church deception is a cop out.

[mormonnewb]

According to the Bible, the enslaved Israelites were basically told to lie to the Egyptians about leaving for good and instead pretended they were only going into the desert to worship, never hinting they planned to just keep going. And that secret included 'borrowing' the riches of the Egyptians so they could properly honour God.

There is some debate among Bible scholars as to whether the KJV gives the best translation from the Hebrew. Here is how the NIV translates the passages of Exodus 12:35-36:

"35 The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. 36 The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians."

In any event, I can see how God would give the Jews recompense for centuries of slavery. But why would He have Joseph lie? He doesn't instruct us to lie today about our sacred (but not secret) stuff. We don't actively try to deceive people about what goes on in the temple. We simply say, "Nunya!" (It's none of ya business)

And even if I'm wrong about ALL of this, wouldn't it be better for members to learn your faith promoting theories in one of the HUNDREDS of hours of primary, seminary, young men/women, etc? Or are we just going to HOPE that they come across FAIR/FARMS before they stumble upon Mormonnewb.com?

[mormonnewb]

Blaming lazy ignorance on Church deception is a cop out.

Lazy ignorance, huh? Isn't it funny how the Church guards against lazy ignorance when it comes to its MONEY? It could just say, "Hey, the law of tithing is on the web. You could have found out about it if you weren't so lazy!"

No, it makes sure you KNOW about that. And you get a yearly interview with your bishop to make sure that you remember.

Look, I have no problem with tithing. But I have a HUGE problem with a man of great learning blaming those of lesser intellect/curiosity/access for their own ignorance. If those "great unwashed masses" don't know then it is our responsibility to TEACH them; not castigate them for their ignorance.