Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[name]

Two things:

 

#1 - I already answered this in post #37 if you want to read a few of the teachings surrounding this.

Sorry! That's what happens when you don't read the entire thread before banging away at letter keys and hitting the post button.

Thanks for the reply.

[Thinking]

I knew about polygamy somewhere in my teens but it was explained with the "always old windows" "never had sex with any" explanations.

 

I think it would be very difficult to have sex with a window, especially an old one.

[Brian 2.0]

I think it would be very difficult to have sex with a window, especially an old one.

Ha! Exactly. Imagine my shock when I found out he wasn't just marrying inanimate windows but actual people!

[name]

if ever you enter into the kingdom of God it is because Joseph Smith let you go there.

no man or woman in this generation will get a resurrection and be crowned, without Joseph Smith saying so.

The man who was martyred in Carthage Jail, State of Illinois, holds the keys of life and death to this generation

 

who will stand at the head of the resurrection in this last dispensation, the answer is - Joseph Smith

Holy Bat-Mobile!

Wow!

[Avatar4321]

LOL!  The article you linked to had ONE reference to ONE of JS' plural wives (and I have to use the Find function on my browser to get to that).

 

Hence, why it it was cited as evidence of the Church not hiding Joseph Smith's plural marriages. Seems rather obvious.

 

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, especially during the Nauvoo period. Those are when some of the most amazing revelations came.

 

You seem to talk to a lot of people who make up pretty bad excuses to justify leaving the Church. It seems impossible to claim that the Church hides Joseph's plural marriages and yet continues to hold Section 132 in plain view of the scriptures.

 

Reminds me of the guy who tried to convince me he was a convert to mormonism who finally found the truth when he learned about the doctrine of Baptism for the dead, despite it being taught in the discussions required for conversion. Or the guy who told me he used to be a member of the Church and didn't know what a Elder was. It's a disingenuous argument that doesn't ring true.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Avatar4321

[JLHPROF]

 

Holy Bat-Mobile!

Wow!

 

Shocking perhaps to the non-mormon Christian, but the pattern fits with scripture where Christ appoints Apostles to judge Israel.  And it definitely fits in the priesthood hierarchy of mormon doctrine.

 

Personally, I full expect to have to answer to any or all of the following when I am judged:

 

Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, 12 Apostles (if indeed I am of Israelite descent), Joseph Smith, any prophet I have lived my life under, any apostles who have presided over me in my life, and possibly many others.

 

It would not surprise me to be able to add the testimonies of my family on how I treated them, Heavenly Mother on how I treated my wife, local priesthood brothers who presided over me and many more.  Hey, it's even possible the very elements will bear witness to my actions.

Edited July 16, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Thinking]

It seems impossible to claim that the Church hides Joseph's plural marriages and yet continues to hold Section 132 in plain view of the scriptures.

 

Do you think that the same people who can't read past 1 Nephi could make it all the way to section 132?

[name]

Shocking perhaps to the non-mormon Christian

Shocking it certainly is!

No perhaps about it.

Thanks for the exchange.

Edited July 16, 2014 by name

[thesometimesaint]

Shocking it certainly is!

No perhaps about it.

Thanks for the exchange.

 

Why is it shocking?

[rlds_coc_lds]

Why is it shocking?

 

Because for the majority of Christians, the idea that anyone but God would decide our fate in any way is heresy.

[MorningStar]

PRIMARY? Where and how was it taught? If you don't mind me asking. I'm in my early 50's, never heard about it until I read it on the web in my late 40's.

I remember a sharing time taught by my mom's best friend where she talked about Joseph Smith introducing polygamy and we learned about other prophets who practiced it.  The most memorable part to me was how many children Brigham Young had.  I am 39 and it would have been about 30 years ago when she taught that lesson. 

[thesometimesaint]

Because for the majority of Christians, the idea that anyone but God would decide our fate in any way is heresy.

 

Those Christians need to read their Bible. Christ gives judgement to his Apostles.

Matthew 19:28

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

[rlds_coc_lds]

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

 

Fortunately, Mormonnewb to the rescue.  My solution: We acknowledge JS as a fallen prophet starting in the Nauvoo period.  Stop flailing about and clawing your eyes out and hear me out:

 

For one, trying to justify JS' polygamy is simply too difficult (which might explain why the Church doesn't even talk about it).  After all, even JS tried to keep it hidden.  Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?  Doesn't it just seem more likely that JS, like almost every other man who has ever had such power over a community, got carried away with that power?

 

Second, if JS was a fallen prophet, he would be in very good company.  In fact, he would be perfectly in line with the Biblical mold of a prophet -- faithful servant plucked from obscurity but eventually, he proved HUMAN.  In fact, when I was investigating the Church, this was the greatest evidence to me of JS' prophetic mantel -- that he messed it up at some point.  That puts him in company with the likes of Noah and Moses and in no way diminishes his earlier works, just as Noah's drunkenness and Moses' temper didn't negate them as prophets.  The ancient Jews didn't throw out the Ten Commandments just because Moses was prohibited from reaching the promised land, so why should the BoM and restoration be affected by JS' fall?

 

Third, and this might be most important, acknowledging JS' fall would bolster the current prophets' claims that they are in line with the Lord's will.  I often hear that the Lord will remove a prophet should he ever lead the Church astray.  However, since this has never happened in our current paradigm, it seems like a hollow statement.  It's the Mormon equivalent of "If I'm lying, may the Lord strike me dead.  (Pause)  I'm still alive so I must be telling the truth."  On the other hand, if the narrative was that Lord will remove a prophet if he ever leads the Church astray like He removed Joseph, well that puts some teeth in the concept of a "heavenly veto" for Church leadership.

 

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

 

I assume you've checked out the Community of Christ? Because that's just about how they came about. If you say, "I like the ordinances and the way the temple is now and baptism for the dead but I think that that polygamy stuff was bogus so just for that little bit Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet," you're digging a hole for yourself in that you're picking and choosing what sounds good to you. Several prophets after him sustained the practice. If they are all fallen prophets, then where does the validity of the LDS Church stand? Would God allow a string of fallen prophets to maintain the Church? I suppose it's possible that God allowed a doctrinally flawed man with talents in leadership (Brigham Young) to lead, because he was necessary to move the Church to Utah successfully, but it becomes dangerous territory theologically. When you do that, every single person becomes free to determine what their personal truth is within the grand scheme of things.

 

"Well, I like the temple. I feel the Spirit there. But you know, those baptisms for the dead are a little strange. I don't think that's right." 

 

"I love the idea of eternal marriage, but not so much refraining from coffee and tea. After all, that was something that was made  a commandment by a fallen prophet. Look he sustained polygamy."

 

Then you could say, well only those things that were reversed later (polygamy, priesthood ban) were subject to the fallen nature of the prophets. But how do you know what could be reversed in the future? So in that sense, maybe nothing is a valid requirement of us because it could all be part of a false prophecy.

[rlds_coc_lds]

Those Christians need to read their Bible. Christ gives judgement to his Apostles.

Matthew 19:28

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

It is my understanding that the majority of Christians read this as while they were still alive, and that the thrones were representative of bishoprics. In any case, I think it's safe to say not many people expect Matthew to be judging them when they die. It has little to do with reading their bible.

[thesometimesaint]

It is my understanding that the majority of Christians read this as while they were still alive, and that the thrones were representative of bishoprics. In any case, I think it's safe to say not many people expect Matthew to be judging them when they die. It has little to do with reading their bible.

 

That makes no sense. One can disbelieve that JS will sit in judgement, but I find it nonsense to disbelieve the other Apostles will not.

[rlds_coc_lds]

That makes no sense. One can disbelieve that JS will sit in judgement, but I find it nonsense to disbelieve the other Apostles will not.

 

I don't think any one person's interpretation is any more nonsensical than another's.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think any one person's interpretation is any more nonsensical than another's.

 

The Scriptures are not for personal interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[rlds_coc_lds]

The Scriptures are not for personal interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

So how have you defined your interpretation that would make anyone else's interpretation nonsense? Yourself or doctrine of a particular denomination/religion?

 

If it's the former, you're a hypocrite (although aren't all humans to one extent or another). If it's the latter, then you can't expect someone of a different denomination/religion to share your feelings on the subject. In either case, calling it nonsense is your "private" view on someone else's belief that you are stating as fact. It's condescending. 

[EllenMaksoud]

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

 

Fortunately, Mormonnewb to the rescue.  My solution: We acknowledge JS as a fallen prophet starting in the Nauvoo period.  Stop flailing about and clawing your eyes out and hear me out:

 

For one, trying to justify JS' polygamy is simply too difficult (which might explain why the Church doesn't even talk about it).  After all, even JS tried to keep it hidden.  Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?  Doesn't it just seem more likely that JS, like almost every other man who has ever had such power over a community, got carried away with that power?

 

Second, if JS was a fallen prophet, he would be in very good company.  In fact, he would be perfectly in line with the Biblical mold of a prophet -- faithful servant plucked from obscurity but eventually, he proved HUMAN.  In fact, when I was investigating the Church, this was the greatest evidence to me of JS' prophetic mantel -- that he messed it up at some point.  That puts him in company with the likes of Noah and Moses and in no way diminishes his earlier works, just as Noah's drunkenness and Moses' temper didn't negate them as prophets.  The ancient Jews didn't throw out the Ten Commandments just because Moses was prohibited from reaching the promised land, so why should the BoM and restoration be affected by JS' fall?

 

Third, and this might be most important, acknowledging JS' fall would bolster the current prophets' claims that they are in line with the Lord's will.  I often hear that the Lord will remove a prophet should he ever lead the Church astray.  However, since this has never happened in our current paradigm, it seems like a hollow statement.  It's the Mormon equivalent of "If I'm lying, may the Lord strike me dead.  (Pause)  I'm still alive so I must be telling the truth."  On the other hand, if the narrative was that Lord will remove a prophet if he ever leads the Church astray like He removed Joseph, well that puts some teeth in the concept of a "heavenly veto" for Church leadership.

 

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

Jacob 2:27 was pretty clear. I see no reason to investigate further.

 

The same sort of prohibition is issued in the Qur'an, and see what happened.

 

I won't judge or condemn JS, however. He was just trying to make the best of a bad situation. If we could just leave our religious hats hanging on the hook in the hall and return to the 1830's we might divine the causation of the practice. As to the Quran, polygamy was a tribal custom and yet again Islam did not surmount tribal practices.

 

In reading in the book of Genesis 20 to 33, I am seeing the formation of other practices that lack modern understanding or explanation.

[Mystery Meat]

This appears to be a uniquely Mormon narrative of faith transitions.  It also seems to be fundamental misunderstanding of human reasoning.

 

As a Baptist, I had a list of rules that very closely resembled the Mormon "No No" list.  At various times, I would willfully break one or several of such rules.  In doing so, I never thought, "I must leave this religion right now because I keep breaking the rules."  In fact, as I understood it, that is precisely WHY I needed a relationship with Christ -- because without Him, I would never be able to keep His commandments.

 

Therefore, on Saturday night, I didn't think, "I've just sinned.  I guess I won't go to church in the morning."  It was just the opposite.  I would think, "Boy, I REALLY missed up tonight.  I better get to church EARLY tomorrow so I don't miss a SINGLE word of the sermon."

 

Yet, we somehow believe that someone's desire for sin will cause their brain to malfunction and they will lose the ability to tell truth from lies.  This might happen in extreme cases, but in my experience, it's entirely possible for human beings to choose to do things that they KNOW are wrong.

 

Let's take a silly example.  I really like ice cream.  Yet, I've had experiences that are too embarrassing to share that cause me to KNOW that it is fattening.  Yet, sometimes (who am I kidding? often) I eat it anyway.  Before buying a pint of Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey, I don't have to try to talk myself out of my belief in ice cream's fat-inducingness by listening to an episode of the Ice Cream Stories podcast.  I can simply choose to do something that I know is wrong.

 

In the same way, no one has to leave this Church in order to embark on a life of porn.  They certainly don't have to deconstruct the very fundamentals of their world view in order to watch porn, in just the same way that I don't have to deconstruct the last century of nutritional science to eat ice cream.  They can simply do it and then feel bad about it later.

 

In fact, from a strategic standpoint, it is easier to engage in sin while a member of the Church.  If a typical Mormon man were to ask for my advice on how to get away with watching porn, my FIRST piece of advice would be, "Don't leave the Church!"  Because the moment that he expresses any indication of doing so, his wife is going to go STRAIGHT to his browser history.  His parents are going to start looking closely around his home for empty beer bottles or cigarette boxes.  Because of this narrative, he has brought upon himself intense scrutiny.

 

So to assume that most people leave the Church because they want to sin assumes that most people have no ability to CTW (choose the wrong).  Whatever happened to that whole agency thing?  Also, it assumes that these people are not very bright because they are simultaneously increasing their odds of getting caught.

 

So we should probably stop this misconception right now and be clear: The vast majority of Mormon sinners are IN the Church.  In fact, to borrow from the Baptists, "A saint is just a sinner who falls down, but keeps getting up."

 

As a recovering pornaholic, I can tell you that you are wrong. Porn does cause a great deal of people to leave the church. I don't have information to back up the 60% stat, but it happens every day, and I imagine the numbers are not small.

 

Basically a man gets trapped in the addiction of porn. They pray and pray for help/strength to quit. After years and years of fighting the addiction is as strong as ever. They assume the lack of change is evidence the Gospel is not true and leave.

[Mystery Meat]

Mormonweb: You're wrong on this one. Pornography is destroying the church. 

 

1st difference between that and a normal sin: A Bishop's visit is required to overcome it.

2nd difference: Its extremely bad (next to adultery, which is next to murder.) This keeps people from feeling the spirit, etc. So they don't get a testimony and wonder why they were ever in the church.

3rd difference: People like it, so they sometimes look for justification to do it. (Anti-mormon genre can do that.) This can then get them to disbelieve and then eventually leave.

 

You have to disbelieve the church and hate the church to leave the church.

 

Like I said, this isn't a law of nature and there are lots of exceptions, but pornography is doing a killer blow against the Church.

 

Don't agree with much here, but you are right it is destroying the Church. Probably best to start a new thread if we want to discuss this further.

[bcuzbcuz]

It is my understanding that the majority of Christians read this as while they were still alive, and that the thrones were representative of bishoprics. In any case, I think it's safe to say not many people expect Matthew to be judging them when they die. It has little to do with reading their bible.

Which Matthew do you mean?

[Bikeemikey]

The Scriptures are not for personal interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

Rubbish - Scriptures are only for private interpretation.

 

Peter was jusy having a bad year because people were disagreeing with him and using the scriptures to support their opposition.

 

As for the point at hand... it is entirely interpretation that results in denominational variance regarding our judgement post-death.

[rlds_coc_lds]

Which Matthew do you mean?

 

The Apostle Matthew.

[EllenMaksoud]

The whole idea that it was a mistake because Joseph "gave into his lusts" is completely ridiculous. I think 1/4 of his wives were over 60 (like over 80 now.) and he had sex with very few.

 

I think its been proposed that plural marriage was a misunderstanding of the adoption stuff. They thought you had to be more physically related to the prophet than figuratively. I don't know how good the case for that is though.

Part of my understanding is that certain aspects were a property rights issue. Apparently, at the time, JS married certain women so their dead husband's property would not fall into the hands of outsiders. In the last half of the 19th and first part of the 20th Centuries, women's rights were in flux. American women did not get the vote until 1920, and oddly women did not get the right to equal funds for sports programs in US Colleges until 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_rights_%28other_than_voting%29

Edited July 16, 2014 by EllenMaksoud