Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

why me · July 19, 2014

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.

Well, lets look at it this way. The mormon women who consented to be plural wives of joseph seemed geniune in their acceptance of the principle of plural marriage. Why must people demean these women by implying that they were duped and lied to? Do not these women hold status as women and so, why should we judge them harshly by implying that they must have been duped as you seem to imply in your previous posts. This would not say much for these women. And how do you know that the GAs are not the least of these?

Edited July 19, 2014 by why me

Tacenda · July 19, 2014

Well, lets look at it this way. The mormon women who consented to be plural wives of Joseph seemed geniune in their acceptance of the principle of plural marriage. Why must people demean these women by implying that they were duped and lied to? Do not these women hold status as women and so, why should we judge them harshly by implying that they must have been duped as you seem to imply in your previous posts. This would not say much for these women. And how do you know that the GAs are not the least of these?

Well, if they are so important or have status, which they are and do, then why are they forgotten in the anals of church history? Literally wiped out of existence anywhere that might get bad public reaction or PR. BY's homes? No pictures of his wives, where once they were found, been there, seen it, was there, not anymore.

Then as I mentioned, on the Significant Events portion, the polygamist wives are left out again and aren't mentioned on the Presidents of the Church page at LDS.org. Apparently the church forgot about it, but not me or many others that wrote books about each individual wife of JS. Those books are no longer sold at Deseret Bookstore. Don't mention Hale's book, it's online only and he doesn't do each of them justice, but atleast they are named, better than what the church's website does.

It appears the women aren't mentioned anywhere but are brushed under the carpet. So before calling out mormonnewb or anyone else, the finger might need to be pointed elsewhere Why Me, but the church never gets it wrong, ever.

The only GA that has admitted that is Pres. Uchtdorf, that I know of. Thank goodness for him, but he could do better and bring these women back into existence and list these women by name like the rest of the non polygamist's wives are.

Each of these precious and stalwart women could and should be listed, can that be so hard? These women probably deserve to be mentioned, spoke about, learned of and have as much to teach as the male leaders. Imagine the legacy we as members are missing, the faithful stories that could be told. But subliminally, we are being told that these women did something wrong, no wonder people might think living polygamy is so wrong.

To me, that is right up there with thinking the women might have been duped, which I don't. I give them more credit then that, I'm not embarrassed by them.

Name them PR people, don't be embarrassed! Or people behind the PR people.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Tacenda

why me · July 19, 2014

Each of these precious and stalwart women could and should be listed, can that be so hard? These women probably deserve to be mentioned, spoke about, learned of and have as much to teach as the male leaders. Imagine the legacy we as members are missing, the faithful stories that could be told. But subliminally, we are being told that these women did something wrong, no wonder people might think living polygamy is so wrong.
To me, that is right up there with thinking the women might have been duped, which I don't. I give them more credit then that, I'm not embarrassed by them.
Name them PR people, don't be embarrassed! Or people behind the PR people.

I think that the problem comes from the fact that the church does not see polygamy as something that needs to be taught now. So, it is pretty much forgotten in learning manuals for priesthood or relief society. In order to have a lesson on these women and the principle, one would need to teach actual history and not gospel living since the lds do not practice polygamy at this moment. However, one can read Bushman's book or some other book written by church historians to find out about these women and the principle. LDS history is rather modern when compared to the history of the catholic church or orthodox church. So, all history is modern in the lds church and hits very close to home. This is why someone like yourself can write what you did above. However, if this happened 600 years ago, would you think that it should be mentioned in a gospel doctrine class which is focused on the here and now? Most other church histories are heaped in mystery because of the age of that particular faith but lds history is recent and so, people like yourself think that it should all be out there for people to read in sunday school. I know of no church that teaches its detailed history in sunday school or catechism classes. But I do know that lds history is rather recent or new and so, critics and exmormons or some members believe that it all should be discussed or mentioned.

Historians both lds and nonlds can write lds history if they can find a publisher to publish such a book. Most religious history is written by scholars who do not have any particular axe to grind, just their own interpretations for others to consider. The interest in lds history is not there for scholars to consider nor perhaps is the market profitable for the publishers. So, we have a dearth of books about lds history written by scholars.

I have not heard the church say that these women did something wrong. However, I do believe that the church thinks that polygamy is not a necessary discussion at this time. However, if the lds church ever receives a revelation for the reinstatement of polygamy, we will be hearing about these women and its history in gospel doctrine classes. And we will be hearing about the wonderful women who took part in it and their spiritual experiences and how they soldiered on against all tribulations, and sorrows and about their sacrifice for the faith that they so earnestly believed in, so that women like yourself will be more favorable to the principle. And for men like myself, will be more willing to practice it too, if called upon to do it.

Edited July 19, 2014 by why me

CV75 · July 19, 2014

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.

Well, Joseph Smith has fit those descriptions quite often. So do the current leaders of the Church. Look at how many of them are infirm, grew up without fathers, experienced their share of poverty, rejection, etc. Look at their histories and you will see.

The parable is both figurative and literal; the passages from the D&C are also, but mostly literal.

When one backs himself in a corner with an accusation, even the most egalitarian instructions from the Lord will be treated as opposition.

why me · July 19, 2014

Each of these precious and stalwart women could and should be listed, can that be so hard? These women probably deserve to be mentioned, spoke about, learned of and have as much to teach as the male leaders. Imagine the legacy we as members are missing, the faithful stories that could be told. But subliminally, we are being told that these women did something wrong, no wonder people might think living polygamy is so wrong.
To me, that is right up there with thinking the women might have been duped, which I don't. I give them more credit then that, I'm not embarrassed by them.
Name them PR people, don't be embarrassed! Or people behind the PR people.

I think that this is a wonderful talk about the past...now are the details left out...yes...but the spirit is there in the past. What the GA said in his talk is for the here and now...but I can honestly say, that if polygamy is reinstated this talk will be one that will be discussed because in some sections of it the polygamous pioneer spirit is there for both the women and for the men who were called to practice it.

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/all-is-well?lang=eng&HPWE071614334

In the end, the best way we can honor the pioneers—the best way for us to repay our debt of gratitude to them—goes beyond making and hearing speeches, marching in parades, or attending fireworks celebrations.

The best way we can show our gratitude is by incorporating into our own lives the faithfulness to God’s commandments, the compassion and love for our fellowmen, the industry, optimism, and joy the pioneers demonstrated so well in their own lives.

As we do so, we can reach across the decades of time and take the hands of those noble pioneers in ours. We can add our own voices to theirs as we sing with them the great pioneer anthem and “make the air with music ring, shout praises to our God and King; above the rest these words we’ll tell—all is well! All is well!”

May our hearts, spirits, and voices be filled with the same passion, industry, and faith of our pioneer forefathers today and always, and may we teach our children the same is my prayer and blessing, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen

Here is how the polgyamous men and women in the church are remembered as are all the pioneers of that time. And it is here in the above that these women are honored, in spirit if not in name. 'The faithfulness to God's commandments. The article is a great read.

Edited July 19, 2014 by why me

thesometimesaint · July 19, 2014

Verse 30 says God will command his people to raise up seed unto Him. It doesn't say God will command people to practice polygamy--that is something you are inferring and isn't the only way to read the verse. Given the problems polygamy causes, both as described in Jacob 2 and illustrated in the Old Testament, it seems quite unlikely that God would command people to engage in disfunctional relalationships in order to raise up seed unto Him. Maybe, God commanding you to raise up seed means God commanding you to have a happy monogamous marriage.

Granted, if that's what this verse really means it could be more clear. But in context, I think this is the better interpretation.

Sorry but you don't get to interpret LDS Scripture.

phi39 · July 19, 2014

I think, by definition, God has yet to call a single PERFECT prophet. . .

Certainly! But Jesus' word of caution implies that there is a line between dealing with a fellow sinner and someone who is out to deceive for gain.

Mystery Meat · July 19, 2014

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!

Ignorance is bliss.

Porn is ancient no doubt about it. But you know not of what you speak. Do some research on the difference between regular, good old fashioned porn, and high speed internet porn. Its a whole different snowball. It causes much more mental damage and physically rewires the reward circuitry in a persons brain, especially a young person. There are 18 year olds with ED because of it. So comparing today's porn to what they had in ancient egypt, the fifties, or even the nineties and the first five or so years of this century is comparing Smarties to Crack Cocaine.

Mystery Meat · July 19, 2014

" 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.

In this case Porn is the 1997 Chicago Bulls and Church History is the Provo 31st Ward Beehives.

thesometimesaint · July 19, 2014

Tacenda:

I'm somewhat of a history buff. Even so the Church officially revoked polygamy on 6 Oct 1890 and totally discontinued it on April 6, 1904.. Ever since the practice polygamy results in immediate excommunication from the Church. I think it is sufficient to let the long ago practice fade into the obscurity of old dusty books that few if any read any more.

Tacenda · July 19, 2014

Tacenda:
I'm somewhat of a history buff. Even so the Church officially revoked polygamy on 6 Oct 1890 and totally discontinued it on April 6, 1904.. Ever since the practice polygamy results in immediate excommunication from the Church. I think it is sufficient to let the long ago practice fade into the obscurity of old dusty books that few if any read any more.

I'm sorry, but to think that way seems ludicrous since at one time polygamy was to be lived, for exaltation. Do even you want the righteous wives of the prophets in a closet with old dusty books?

Why do the prophets stay out and are studied and admired? These women gave up having only one husband, some families went without to the point of being starved. Some lived in very poor living conditions, most were extremely lonely and had to be both mother and father the majority of the time. Many children didn't know their fathers well.

If we truly care about our ancestors, do their work etc. Then surely we can use some space on the Church Presidents page to list who they were married to, give them that atleast. If you're a history buff I'm surprised you're ok with history going blank on these women, yet the antis don't?

We have Marjorie Hinckley and Camilla Kimball etc., did they sacrifice more? Is that why they're listed? And if the polygamist wives were listed, people will want to live it again and go against the current policy of the church? That seems to be an illogical fallacy. Of course if there are some that do, it's good to sift them out isn't it? Or the church has good reasons for it, maybe many would do that. But doing what is right exceeds that possibility, IMO.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Tacenda

Calm · July 19, 2014

In this case Porn is the 1997 Chicago Bulls and Church History is the Provo 31st Ward Beehives.

The instant gratification as opposed to having to go out and physically find it, the availability of hard core and even violent porn allowing one to increase the intensity of the experience at will...there is a huge difference for the majority of the population. Being able to access it at home without real effort immediately prevents shame or fear of discovery or just giving one's brain long enough to consider what the implications are from delaying or even preventing one from going ahead. Also having a large variety is key to deepening addiction for porn. Addiction is much less likely to occur if it is just the same stuff all the time. The Internet provides endless variety in a way finding Dad's stash of Playboy in the basement never did.

Who is more likely to get addicted, someone who can get ahold of pot but not much else without risking problems with the cops and even that in limited quanties or someone who has a cabinet full of an endless supply of all kinds of legal and illegal drugs and only has to touch a button to get it? Of course, the really hard core stuff was around, but not generally in the hands of kids or young adults and it took some effort and investment to find it.

Calm · July 19, 2014

. Of course if there are some that do, it's good to sift them out isn't it? Or the church has good reasons for it, maybe many would do that.

This from someone who has protested pretty consistently that the law should be in there breaking up polygamous families etc? Taking children away from parents who would teach them that polygamy is God's standard? let's do it and just risk families being harmed by an unrighteous practice so we can say our history is all out there?

I think righteous, loving women (and men...there are plenty of polygamous men in history that are ignored these days) wouldn't really care about being made into role models if it meant less confusion about what God has actually commanded. It is one thing to make such sacrifices when God commands it as they were willing to do, to suffer those hardships when not commanded? I think they would find that very sad and not a tribute to their faithfulness, but quite the opposite.

I think it would be much better if we as individuals recognize and honour our families rather than shifting the burden to the Church. How much do you know, Tacenda, about the lives of your great-great grandmother? How much are you sharing their lives with your children and other family members and even friends?

We can give great recognition to these women in our ancestry as individuals without running the risk of giving their choices in life some greater mystique or eternal significance than they actually have.

Edited July 19, 2014 by calmoriah

UtahTexan · July 19, 2014

I truly do not understand the issue here.

Let me ask you this. Just assume that Joseph started polygamy for the wrong reasons.

Did it benefit people? Were women take care of? Were children born and raised in good families?

Now, I do not think I could ever be in a polygamous marriage, but there are those who clearly can, and do it well!

So, who are we to say it is bad? Illegal, yes. Bad? Maybe not.

The truth is, Joseph taught and started a concept that benefited hundreds of women and children.

why me · July 19, 2014

If we truly care about our ancestors, do their work etc. Then surely we can use some space on the Church Presidents page to list who they were married to, give them that atleast. If you're a history buff I'm surprised you're ok with history going blank on these women, yet the antis don't?
We have Marjorie Hinckley and Camilla Kimball etc., did they sacrifice more? Is that why they're listed? And if the polygamist wives were listed, people will want to live it again and go against the current policy of the church? That seems to be an illogical fallacy. Of course if there are some that do, it's good to sift them out isn't it? Or the church has good reasons for it, maybe many would do that. But doing what is right exceeds that possibility, IMO.

I actually don't read much about the prophets' wives in the presidents of the church manuals at all and so, why would the polygamous wives be there? Did you read the link that I gave you? Or my comments before that post? Also, I don't think that we have much from the polygamous wives. We do have some things from Zina and Eliza. But the others, like fanny seem a mystery. But I don't remember wives being mentioned at all in the manuals for priesthood for any prophet.

Tacenda · July 19, 2014

I actually don't read much about the prophets' wives in the presidents of the church manuals at all and so, why would the polygamous wives be there? Did you read the link that I gave you? Or my comments before that post? Also, I don't think that we have much from the polygamous wives. We do have some things from Zina and Eliza. But the others, like fanny seem a mystery. But I don't remember wives being mentioned at all in the manuals for priesthood for any prophet.

That would very nice to have that, all I'm asking for is their names to be put on that church website just as the other non polygamist wives are.

I'm sorry, I'll go read the links.

thesometimesaint · July 19, 2014

I'm sorry, but to think that way seems ludicrous since at one time polygamy was to be lived, for exaltation. Do even you want the righteous wives of the prophets in a closet with old dusty books?
Why do the prophets stay out and are studied and admired? These women gave up having only one husband, some families went without to the point of being starved. Some lived in very poor living conditions, most were extremely lonely and had to be both mother and father the majority of the time. Many children didn't know their fathers well.
If we truly care about our ancestors, do their work etc. Then surely we can use some space on the Church Presidents page to list who they were married to, give them that atleast. If you're a history buff I'm surprised you're ok with history going blank on these women, yet the antis don't?
We have Marjorie Hinckley and Camilla Kimball etc., did they sacrifice more? Is that why they're listed? And if the polygamist wives were listed, people will want to live it again and go against the current policy of the church? That seems to be an illogical fallacy. Of course if there are some that do, it's good to sift them out isn't it? Or the church has good reasons for it, maybe many would do that. But doing what is right exceeds that possibility, IMO.

At one time animal sacrifice was lived for exaltation. Yes it was relegated to old dusty books that few if any read anymore. Namely the OT part of the Bible.

That wasn't the fault of polygamy. Many monogamous marriages even today experience the same things.

I care about my ancestors, but have little desire to live as they did.To me the most important thing was/is they are Prophets of God. Secondly that they were married and Sealed to their spouse(s) in the Temple of the Lord. Their personal marriage arrangements are of little consequence to me. Let alone my salvation and exaltation.

I admire both those women, along with all the other wonderful women we do have in the Church. They sacrifice much for their families, and help the Church move along. I certainly have no desire for the earthly return of polygamy to the Church. What God will require of me in the next life. I'll deal with if and when it comes up.We have Scripture that excludes it earthly practice at this time. If and when God says practice it again. I'll deal with it then.

Edited July 19, 2014 by thesometimesaint

Mystery Meat · July 19, 2014

The instant gratification as opposed to having to go out and physically find it, the availability of hard core and even violent porn allowing one to increase the intensity of the experience at will...there is a huge difference for the majority of the population. Being able to access it at home without real effort immediately prevents shame or fear of discovery or just giving one's brain long enough to consider what the implications are from delaying or even preventing one from going ahead. Also having a large variety is key to deepening addiction for porn. Addiction is much less likely to occur if it is just the same stuff all the time. The Internet provides endless variety in a way finding Dad's stash of Playboy in the basement never did.
Who is more likely to get addicted, someone who can get ahold of pot but not much else without risking problems with the cops and even that in limited quanties or someone who has a cabinet full of an endless supply of all kinds of legal and illegal drugs and only has to touch a button to get it? Of course, the really hard core stuff was around, but not generally in the hands of kids or young adults and it took some effort and investment to find it.

Preach.

Tacenda · July 19, 2014

This from someone who has protested pretty consistently that the law should be in there breaking up polygamous families etc? Taking children away from parents who would teach them that polygamy is God's standard? let's do it and just risk families being harmed by an unrighteous practice so we can say our history is all out there?
I think righteous, loving women (and men...there are plenty of polygamous men in history that are ignored these days) wouldn't really care about being made into role models if it meant less confusion about what God has actually commanded. It is one thing to make such sacrifices when God commands it as they were willing to do, to suffer those hardships when not commanded? I think they would find that very sad and not a tribute to their faithfulness, but quite the opposite.
I think it would be much better if we as individuals recognize and honour our families rather than shifting the burden to the Church. How much do you know, Tacenda, about the lives of your great-great grandmother? How much are you sharing their lives with your children and other family members and even friends?
We can give great recognition to these women in our ancestry as individuals without running the risk of giving their choices in life some greater mystique or eternal significance than they actually have.

They are given more mystique by the church then by me, once again, just want names is all. And you've misunderstood me, I don't want women and children broke up, I just want laws or help from the law to stop evil doers that abuse, and in fact most of these families are broke apart by their leaders.

In the name of making the church held unaccountable for everything, it sure is funny how my words get twisted. I've not ever said it shouldn't be lived in righteousness. I watch Sister's Wives and am in awe of Cody Brown's righteousness. He probably lives it much better then most.

I don't think that God commanded it per say, nor did he command SSM. In fact he said there is no marriage in heaven. I know, I know, there is an explanation for that too.

I have told my family about my ancestors, one in particular, Mary Ann Mellor. She's the one whose daughters found the pie in the road. They settled in Fayette, Utah. Her husband James, started living polygamy when they were established. Apparently their story was hushed in my family, my mother once told me about Mary Ann and her sisters not getting along, without ever telling me they were "sister" wives. I learned about their story very recently from a family friend who urged me to read about her and her family in the book "The Price We Paid". I shared via email all of this to my sisters, who were unaware. I started reading, haven't finished, an autobiography about this family coming over by ship, losing twin babies, and then their ordeals on the plains, that was written by a distant relative and shared that too.

ERayR · July 19, 2014

I'm sorry, but to think that way seems ludicrous since at one time polygamy was to be lived, for exaltation. Do even you want the righteous wives of the prophets in a closet with old dusty books?

At one time animal sacrifice was required and the animal was burned in the temple. Do you think instructions on preparing the animal for sacrifice and instructions on the ritual butchering of the animal should also be taught?

thesometimesaint · July 19, 2014

In fact he said there is no marriage in heaven. I know, I know, there is an explanation for that too.

If you don't accept the Church's explanation for Temple Sealings. I don't know to say.

Analytics · July 19, 2014

Sorry but you don't get to interpret LDS Scripture.

Do I get to share my thoughts about what they say? If not, please let me know and I'll stop posting.

Kind Debater · July 20, 2014

This is a site by an LDS woman that gives biographical info on Smith's wives:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

williamsmith · July 20, 2014

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)

Joseph kept "private" (not hidden because many people knew about it) the Sealing Ordinance, not "polygamy".

Polygamy is having spousal relationship with a wife. He had only one actual "wife". And Emma swore to her death that this was true.

He wasn't fallen..... anti-mormons are who distort the history.

Coreyb · July 20, 2014

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)

better solution, we stop thinking about true prophets as good/righteous men, and more of spokesmen for God. Think about it, would anybody care that much if a church spokesperson was caught in a passionate extramarital affair? It would shock some, but most would think "Meh, its just a spokesperson". It shouldnt be any more shocking than when a regular active ward member is caught up in adultery (which happens all too often). Yet if an Apostle did something like that, it would rock many of us Mormons little worlds! But why should this be so? Isnt no man good but God?

Sign In

Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

Recommended Posts

why me

Tacenda

why me

CV75

why me

thesometimesaint

phi39

Mystery Meat

Mystery Meat

thesometimesaint

Tacenda

Calm

Calm

UtahTexan

why me

Tacenda

thesometimesaint

Mystery Meat

Tacenda

ERayR

thesometimesaint

Analytics

Kind Debater

williamsmith

Coreyb

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost 1 2 3 4

Temple in Russia 1 2

A Prophet's Reward and Apostasy of the Church 1 2 3 4 6

Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967) 1 2 3 4 18

Listening to the Prophets 1 2 3 4 5

Activity

Browse