Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[Scott Lloyd]

And I don't think He was making an exception for those who "should have done the proper research" to know the things that the Church refused to tell them.

Reading the scriptures is something everyone in the Church is admonished to do.

 

And someone of normal intelligence and alertness who reads the the Doctrine and Covenants section on plurality of wives could be expected to get the message that Joseph not only received the revelation temporarily instituting plural marriage but set the example by practicing it.

 

So it makes no sense to say "the Church refused to tell them" when it's right there in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Church admonishes everyone to read and study.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

An evangelical like me would probably spend time in a discussion trying to show that Joseph Smith was a false (not merely fallen) prophet citing things like the rampant polygamy you mentioned, the secret wives, and the part in the D&C where Emma has to accept these wives or else (D&C 132:52-54).

 

You are hoping that by saying Smith was "fallen" rather than "false" you might separate the man from the message.  But Jesus told us not to separate the two when he said "You will know them [the false prophets] by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-23).    

 

When founding a religion, wouldn't the character of the man be as important as the message?  If so, why hold on to Smith when you have Christ?

 

Was Moses a false prophet? He had multiple wives. How about Abraham, he too had multiple wives. The list of polygamous prophets is long and varied.  Were they all false prophets? Even during Christ's mortal ministry polygamy was common. Or is it because you don't believe any Mormons are worthy of being prophets of God?

 

That verse doesn't say that. Here is that verse "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves".

 

Character assassination seems to be the hallmark of evangelicals that come here trying to tell Mormons what we believe.

Now what do you understand as a evangelical the meaning of verses

Ephesians 4:11-13King James Version (KJV)

¹¹ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[Analytics]

Reading the scriptures is something everyone in the Church is admonished to do.

 

And someone of normal intelligence and alertness who reads the the Doctrine and Covenants section on plurality of wives could be expected to get the message that Joseph not only received the revelation temporarily instituting plural marriage but set the example by practicing it.

 

So it makes no sense to say "the Church refused to tell them" when it's right there in the Doctrine and Coveants that the Church admonishes everyone to read and study.

 

Not necessarily.  One could just as easily believe that Joseph Smith received a revelation restoring the concept of plural marriage, but never practiced it because he died before he got around to implementing it. 

 

The truth is Joseph Smith went out of his way NOT to set an example of plural marriage—he never explained to the Saints that denials of polygamy in the D&C of the time were mistaken.  He never read D&C 132 to the Saints, or explained its precepts to them.  He even went out of his way to ensure that his own personal records and the records of the church made no mention of him engaging in plural marriage.

 

Those are not the actions of somebody trying to set an example.

[ERayR]

No, actually it's I pronounce you and seal upon you.  The sealing is when you are pronounced, the seal upon you are the blessings.  But you are married AND sealed when you are pronounced for time and all eternity, else how could you be married for eternity?  Then additional blessing are sealed upon you.  They are NOT separate.  I read it carefully.

 

The pronounce is when the marriage takes place the and indicates that in addition to and after pronouncing them husband and wife they are then sealed.

[CV75]

why hold on to Smith when you have Christ?

With regards to maligning the Lord's servants, see Matthew 10:17: "But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues..."

 

With regards to the Lord's feelings about His emissaries, "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16) also, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:18-19)

 

With regards to those who are trying to show that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, we are only trying to save you from yourselves: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

[Mystery Meat]

"People who leave the Church are just too weak to resist the lures of porn, booze and Starbucks."

 

If this is in reference to what I posted, at best it is a mischaracterization, at worst a flat out lie.

 

First, I never said people leave because of the lure's of pornography, I said they leave because they get tired of fighting the fight of addiction. They have spent many years praying, fasting, and struggling to get the addiction to go away with no avail. At some point they simply conclude the gospel isn't true, there is no God, and/or some other Church/Philosophy has a better solution. I think they are wrong, yet having been there myself, I can sympathize with the feeling.

 

Second, people do leave because of porn. It is wreaking havoc on individuals, families, and the Church at large. That doesn't mean that people who leave because of Church history issues really have porn issues. They are not mutually exclusive. To tie what I said to that is dishonest and I am not sure you are really interested in honest conversation.

 

People who leave the Church for history reasons are a whole different snowball. I think there reasons for doing so are wrong, often misguided, and in some cases (often) based on naivete, anger, or some other prejudice. But that's just me. That doesn't change the fact that people are leaving the Church because of Porn. They are two different issues. 

 

And if you wanted my opinion Porn is doing five times the damage to Church membership that Church History concerns will ever do.

[phi39]

 

Was Moses a false prophet? He had multiple wives. How about Abraham, he too had multiple wives . . . polygamy was common . . . you don't believe any Mormons are worthy of being prophets of God?

 

That verse doesn't say that. Here is that verse "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves".

Character assassination seems to be the hallmark of evangelicals that come here trying to tell Mormons what we believe.

Now what do you understand as a evangelical the meaning of verses

Ephesians 4:11-13 King James Version (KJV) . . .

The verses I cited (Matthew 7:15-23) do say what I said they do, please read from verse 15 all the way to 23.  I quoted the whole passage for context.

 

Moses had two wives, but not at the same time.  Abraham had concubines not wives besides Sarah, and none of it turned out for good.  The OT prophets are rarely described as being married.  Hosea and Isaiah are the only two I know of, and they only had one wife each.  God sets the standard in Genesis: one man, one woman, one flesh.  Any deviation from that model leads to strife and ruin throughout scripture.  You seem to imply that polygamy is/was fundamentally a good thing, but scripture would show otherwise.

 

I was not attempting character assassination.  I was responding to the writer who was already proposing a "fallen" prophet, in light of polygamy.  He was already accepting polygamy as a bad thing and an evangelical would agree.  So I am telling him his argument doesn't help his cause.  I believe Smith's pattern of behavior went beyond following customs of his day (polygamy was and is illegal in the states!), and falls in line with the pattern of false prophets described in the NT who use the faith for personal gain.  

 

Lastly, you are correct, I do not believe any Mormon could be a prophet, just as you do not believe any evangelical could hold the Aaronic or Melkizadeck priesthood in the LDS church.  We are at a similar impasse with the Ephesians passage you cited.

[Kenngo1969]

Newb,

 

I don't think you've answered my question from goodness-knows-how-many-pages-back.  If the Lord wanted to throw Joseph Smith under the wagon, then why did this happen?

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585792/Event-convinced-Saints-of-Brigham-Youngs-mantle.html?pg=1

 

Sincerely,

 

Your second-favorite racist (After the guy who tossed the n-bomb at you)

[Scott Lloyd]

Not necessarily. One could just as easily believe that Joseph Smith received a revelation restoring the concept of plural marriage, but never practiced it because he died before he got around to implementing it.

Well, I did specify a reader of normal intelligence and alertness. Perhaps I should add someone who is not pathologically and intransigently in denial.

And even if one did not know previously that Joseph practiced it, it has always struck me as inconsistent that one would accept it on the part of Brigham Young and numerous other Church leaders yet be so scandalized to learn that Joseph received the revelation, taught it and lived it.

The truth is Joseph Smith went out of his way NOT to set an example of plural marriage—he never explained to the Saints that denials of polygamy in the D&C of the time were mistaken. He never read D&C 132 to the Saints, or explained its precepts to them. He even went out of his way to ensure that his own personal records and the records of the church made no mention of him engaging in plural marriage.

Those are not the actions of somebody trying to set an example.

Obviously you intend to ignore the fact that all this took place in an atmosphere in which the Church was being subjected to mob violence, vigilanteism and oppression, that the Church was already fighting for its survival and it was absolutely necessary to be circumspect about going public immediately about such a radical departure from the societal norms of the day; that Joseph did teach it to and set the example for a trusted inner circle with the intent (as borne out by subsequent events) that the principle one day would be taught to the Church at large and acknowledged publicly.

Incidentally, why do you post in a larger font? Is it to give yourself a psychological advantage among readers? Shrewd, if manipulative.

[mormonnewb]

An evangelical like me would probably spend time in a discussion trying to show that Joseph Smith was a false (not merely fallen) prophet citing things like the rampant polygamy you mentioned, the secret wives, and the part in the D&C where Emma has to accept these wives or else (D&C 132:52-54).

 

You are hoping that by saying Smith was "fallen" rather than "false" you might separate the man from the message.  But Jesus told us not to separate the two when he said "You will know them [the false prophets] by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-23).    

 

When founding a religion, wouldn't the character of the man be as important as the message?  If so, why hold on to Smith when you have Christ?

 

I think, by definition, God has yet to call a single PERFECT prophet.  In fact, most of them have had some serious flaws, including the Apostle Paul who speaks specifically about HF said to him, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness."  So if a character flaw makes a prophet "false," we're going to be left with no prophets at all.

[mormonnewb]

Reading the scriptures is something everyone in the Church is admonished to do.

 

And someone of normal intelligence and alertness who reads the the Doctrine and Covenants section on plurality of wives could be expected to get the message that Joseph not only received the revelation temporarily instituting plural marriage but set the example by practicing it.

 

So it makes no sense to say "the Church refused to tell them" when it's right there in the Doctrine and Coveants that the Church admonishes everyone to read and study.

 

So what is your explanation for why the Church doesn't give ANY specifics about JS' plural wives?  If it's all out there in the open, why only the mention of Emma?  Why no mention of Fanny Alger -- given that it's right there in D&C 132, right?  No mention of marrying other men's wives?  Why not?  If it was all right there in D&C.

 

And why are people having faith crises over this, if it's so obvious ... and so very right and natural?  Do you really think that our beloved sister Tacenda was just itching to get her porn on?  Really?  Or is it POSSIBLE that she (and MANY others) feel that their beloved Prophet did not act honorably and worse, their beloved Church tried to sweep it under the rug?  Between Team Porn and Team Betrayal, I know which side I line up on.  How about you?

[mormonnewb]

 

With regards to those who are trying to show that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, we are only trying to save you from yourselves: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

 

This is at the heart of my frustration with our Mormon culture.  Our Prophets are not the "LEAST OF THESE."  The least of these are specifically referred to as the hungry, thirsty, the stranger, the sick, those in prison, etc.  And Christ warns that we will be judged by how we treat those with these least status; not the most status.

[CV75]

So what is your explanation for why the Church doesn't give ANY specifics about JS' plural wives?  If it's all out there in the open, why only the mention of Emma?  Why no mention of Fanny Alger -- given that it's right there in D&C 132, right?  No mention of marrying other men's wives?  Why not?  If it was all right there in D&C.

 

And why are people having faith crises over this, if it's so obvious ... and so very right and natural?  Do you really think that our beloved sister Tacenda was just itching to get her porn on?  Really?  Or is it POSSIBLE that she (and MANY others) feel that their beloved Prophet did not act honorably and worse, their beloved Church tried to sweep it under the rug?  Between Team Porn and Team Betrayal, I know which side I line up on.  How about you?

Of course there are some (I’m not sure what you mean by “MANY others”) who feel that Joseph Smith did not act honorably and/or the Church tried to sweep it under the rug. They may feel that way, but they simply do not know, and that is a false basis upon which to make an accusation, especially if it is against the spiritual witness they’ve received. To paraphrase Albert Morris (and 3 Nephi 9:2), “Feelings, wo, wo, wo feelings…”

 

When the Brethren say, “We do not know,” they are not accusing anyone of anything.

 

Someone has to be in the right frame of mind to put off the accusations, hurt feelings, antagonism and contention to truthfully investigate how the Church delivers its message, and to also put himself in the Church’s shoes. It may be a tall order, but since everybody has to do it some time or another, is quite reasonable.

[mormonnewb]

Newb,

 

I don't think you've answered my question from goodness-knows-how-many-pages-back.  If the Lord wanted to throw Joseph Smith under the wagon, then why did this happen?

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585792/Event-convinced-Saints-of-Brigham-Youngs-mantle.html?pg=1

 

Sincerely,

 

Your second-favorite racist (After the guy who tossed the n-bomb at you)

 

I'm not sure I get your point.  JS could not have been a fallen prophet because BY channeled him in the great Rigdon-Young succession debate?  Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?

[CV75]

This is at the heart of my frustration with our Mormon culture.  Our Prophets are not the "LEAST OF THESE."  The least of these are specifically referred to as the hungry, thirsty, the stranger, the sick, those in prison, etc.  And Christ warns that we will be judged by how we treat those with these least status; not the most status.

No, the "least of these" are greatest, "notwithstanding [they are] the least and the servant of all"; those who from a worldly perspective are weak and simple because they proclaim the restored Gospel, the fulness of Christ's Gospel.

[teddyaware]

So what is your explanation for why the Church doesn't give ANY specifics about JS' plural wives?  If it's all out there in the open, why only the mention of Emma?  Why no mention of Fanny Alger -- given that it's right there in D&C 132, right?  No mention of marrying other men's wives?  Why not?  If it was all right there in D&C.

 

And why are people having faith crises over this, if it's so obvious ... and so very right and natural?  Do you really think that our beloved sister Tacenda was just itching to get her porn on?  Really?  Or is it POSSIBLE that she (and MANY others) feel that their beloved Prophet did not act honorably and worse, their beloved Church tried to sweep it under the rug?  Between Team Porn and Team Betrayal, I know which side I line up on.  How about you?

I feel for you brother. You're in for one very long, tough and frustrating ride. I genuinely hope it all works out for the best.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure I get your point.  JS could not have been a fallen prophet because BY channeled him in the great Rigdon-Young succession debate?  Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?

I'm not trying to oversimplify or to mischaracterize what you're saying, so if I do either of those, I welcome correction.  That said, as I understand your thesis, Joseph Smith, at some point, went "off the rails" (my phrase) by teaching/advocating things that were not sanctioned by the Lord.  If your thesis is correct, can you explain to me why it is that Brigham Young appeared to so many people as Joseph Smith?  Why would the Lord allow that to happen if He were displeased with how Brother Joseph shouldered the mantle of prophet?  Why not simply say, "OK, Brother Brigham, that was then, this is now; you're in charge.  Best wishes.  Pray if you need anything"?

[mormonnewb]

No, the "least of these" are greatest, "notwithstanding [they are] the least and the servant of all"; those who from a worldly perspective are weak and simple because they proclaim the restored Gospel, the fulness of Christ's Gospel.

NO! The text clearly states whom the LEAST OF THESE are in Matthew 25:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

[mormonnewb]

If this is in reference to what I posted, at best it is a mischaracterization, at worst a flat out lie.

 

First, I never said people leave because of the lure's of pornography, I said they leave because they get tired of fighting the fight of addiction. They have spent many years praying, fasting, and struggling to get the addiction to go away with no avail. At some point they simply conclude the gospel isn't true, there is no God, and/or some other Church/Philosophy has a better solution. I think they are wrong, yet having been there myself, I can sympathize with the feeling.

 

Second, people do leave because of porn. It is wreaking havoc on individuals, families, and the Church at large. That doesn't mean that people who leave because of Church history issues really have porn issues. They are not mutually exclusive. To tie what I said to that is dishonest and I am not sure you are really interested in honest conversation.

 

People who leave the Church for history reasons are a whole different snowball. I think there reasons for doing so are wrong, often misguided, and in some cases (often) based on naivete, anger, or some other prejudice. But that's just me. That doesn't change the fact that people are leaving the Church because of Porn. They are two different issues. 

 

And if you wanted my opinion Porn is doing five times the damage to Church membership that Church History concerns will ever do.

 

Well, it was NOT a reference to what you posted, so we're good.

 

As for your assertion of porn's 500% potency over history, I don't know if there are any numbers to prove (or disprove) your claim.  However, I think there is one big argument against Team Porn -- it's been around FOREVER.  We've found porn in Egyptian hieroglyphs.  And we know it certainly didn't start when Al Gore invented the Internet.  However, Al Gore can be blamed for the great proliferation of historical facts.  In the last 20 years, the newer factor isn't porn, but the greater access to "anti-Mormon" information on the Internet.  One point for Team History!

Edited July 19, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Brian 2.0]

Well if it does, don't expect it to throw Joseph under the bus, if that's what you're implying. I've noticed those Gospel Topics entries typically bring together understanding and scholarship that is already existing as opposed to breaking new ground. And nothing in the Church currently comes even close to condemning the Prophet as the OP is doing.

Not implying that at all.

I do hope that although it's supposedly titled Navauo Polygamy I hope it includes Fanny.

[mormonnewb]

I'm not trying to oversimplify or to mischaracterize what you're saying, so if I do either of those, I welcome correction.  That said, as I understand your thesis, Joseph Smith, at some point, went "off the rails" (my phrase) by teaching/advocating things that were not sanctioned by the Lord.  If your thesis is correct, can you explain to me why it is that Brigham Young appeared to so many people as Joseph Smith?  Why would the Lord allow that to happen if He were displeased with how Brother Joseph shouldered the mantle of prophet?  Why not simply say, "OK, Brother Brigham, that was then, this is now; you're in charge.  Best wishes.  Pray if you need anything"?

 

I see your point, but it doesn't fall in line with how HF handled other prophets.  For instance, when Moses transgressed, HF didn't make an announcement telling everyone that Moses was no longer the prophet.  Just the opposite, it appears that Moses continued as prophet for quite some time.  And the people didn't seem to have any knowledge that he wouldn't be their prophet indefinitely, which probably explains why they waited so long at Mount Nebo waiting for him to return.  It was finally Joshua (the new prophet) who had to informed them that Moses wasn't coming back.  And I don't see any indication that when Joshua did so, he told the people that Moses was in any way fallen.  He simply said, "That was then.  This is now.  Let's get to stepping!"

 

In the same way, I see no reason why HF would have attempted to embarrass JS in some way.  At his death, JS was highly respected (and rightfully so).  Even IF (and it's a big if) he got off-track at the end, he still brought about the restoration and did a "great and marvelous work unto the Lord."  So it would only make sense that the mantel would pass from the great prophet himself.

Edited July 19, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Calm]

" In the last 20 years, the newer factor isn't porn, but the greater access to "anti-Mormon" information on the Internet.  One point for Team History!"

And antimormon info has been around since the Church began and before.

Ease and amount of access has increased for both porn and antimormon material with the Internet.

I suppose there are people out there addicted to antimormon material but I think porn addiction is likely to increase significantly faster than the other, so at least in addiction I'd say porn wins.

[ERayR]

Even IF (and it's a big if) he got off-track at the end, he still brought about the restoration and did a "great and marvelous work unto the Lord." 

 

If he did get off track and I do not think he did but if he did it would be well to recognize that those who set themselves up to correct him found their efforts rejected by God and they themselves leaving the church.  In the end they lost what they had.  Continual agitation against Church leaders and Church practice usually leads to apostasy. Case in point: Recent events with KK. 

Edited July 19, 2014 by ERayR

[why me]

So all of these people are liars or stupid, huh? As one such person, tell me WHERE in our scriptures it mentions that JS married GIRLS or other people's wives. Tell me where it talks about how he publicly denied polygamy while practicing it in secret. I'll wait ...

Once again, this desire to attack those who don't know while bending over backwards to protect the reputations of leaders is amazing. No one needs the Holy Spirit to revere the powerful. Even a heathen has enough sense to bow and scrape before royalty (political or ecclesiastical). Christ tells us that he will judge us by how we treat the LEAST of these, not by how we treat those with the greatest authority. And I don't think He was making an exception for those who "should have done the proper research" to know the things that the Church refused to tell them.

Why would such things be in the scriptures? He was commanded to again practice polygamy. And he did. I do believe that polygandry is mentioned in 132. And why use the word attack? It is such a strong word. It seems that you enjoy using the words that the critics use to make a point. And again you take the moral high ground with a poster. I can also play this game. Why do you attack posters who you disagree with?  Why do you continually take the moral high ground to score a point here or there? And when you read your above post, do you think that you are responding in a christlike manner? Should you not show the poster you are attacking a more christlike attitude?

 

It is easy to take the moral high ground as you can see from my above paragraph.

[why me]

 

In the same way, I see no reason why HF would have attempted to embarrass JS in some way.  At his death, JS was highly respected (and rightfully so).  Even IF (and it's a big if) he got off-track at the end, he still brought about the restoration and did a "great and marvelous work unto the Lord."  So it would only make sense that the mantel would pass from the great prophet himself.

Has the church claimed that JS got off the track when it came to polygamy? I don't think so. Just the opposite. When joseph would ask a women to be a plural wife, he tried his utmost to contact a family member to get their assent. And many of these women prayed over the principle, received a spitiual experience and then, agreed about it. Sounds very spiritual to me.

Edited July 19, 2014 by why me