Do We Worship Joseph Smith?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Maybe they felt forced into it, like their salvation was on the line if they didn't.

[webbles]

Glen,

 

I can't find the edit function so I have to add this here because I don't feel I made it clear in my above post. I don't know how these questions I'm asking go round and round, as I stated above, they are simple questions and have concrete answers. So far I appear to have found those answers even though no one here wants to give them, and so I am further inclined to believe JS was a fallen prophet by the time D&C 132 was implemented. There is no way around the adultery issue as D&C 132 is written to say nothing of the virgin commandment that was violated.

By your logic, Joseph Smith would be a fallen prophet as early as 1838 (when he possibly married Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris who was already married at that time) and as late as 1841 (when he married Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs who was already married as well).  That would mean that pretty much anything from the Nauvoo Temple era (such as baptism for the dead, eternal marriage, etc) would be coming from a fallen prophet.  If those items are true (based on a spiritual testimony) than that would mean that he was not a fallen prophet and another answer has to be found.

[JLHPROF]

Maybe they felt forced into it, like their salvation was on the line if they didn't.

 

Then they would be able to choose a different companion.  NOBODY will be required to stay married to someone they don't choose.

[Hamilton Porter]

Most of us don't.

[Matt1074]

By your logic, Joseph Smith would be a fallen prophet as early as 1838 (when he possibly married Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris who was already married at that time) and as late as 1841 (when he married Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs who was already married as well).  That would mean that pretty much anything from the Nauvoo Temple era (such as baptism for the dead, eternal marriage, etc) would be coming from a fallen prophet.  If those items are true (based on a spiritual testimony) than that would mean that he was not a fallen prophet and another answer has to be found.

I don't know whether fallen prophets are no longer able to commune with God on anything or if they simply start interjecting their own wishes into things here and there. I really don't. At what point did God stop communing with David altogether? If another answer has to be found it would one that included adultery, which as I've noted is pretty troubling.

[Matt1074]

Oh for pete's sake.  I love that everyone blames Joseph.  One of the key principles of the Mormon marriage system (as evidenced from the higher ordinances) is that the woman chooses her eternal companion.  If they wanted to choose Joseph to be sealed to for all eternity that was their right.

This is bizarre on so many levels, as if JS couldn't have said, no, I'm not going to allow you or myself to commit adultery no matter who you want to be sealed to. I would think a prophet of God would have enough judgment to do that and as a leader of the LDS Church he would have wanted those women sealed to their existing husbands.

[JLHPROF]

This is bizarre on so many levels, as if JS couldn't have said, no, I'm not going to allow you or myself to commit adultery no matter who you want to be sealed to. I would think a prophet of God would have enough judgment to do that and as a leader of the LDS Church he would have wanted those women sealed to their existing husbands.

 

Isaiah 4:1

[3DOP]

I think it was wrong for already married women to be sealed to a prophet, since they already had a husband. They should've been sealed to their husband. If I was that husband I would be super angry. Weren't there enough single women to be sealed to?

 

How can you say the Prophet Joseph Smith was wrong about who he could lawfully marry in the eyes of your God, and then believe what he says about the apostasy of my church?  In my opinion, you can't have Joseph Smith being right about something as obscure to a New York farm kid in the early 1800's as the Catholic Church with all of its centuries of Tradition, and wrong about his own weddings. If I were you, I would figure out a way to defend Joseph Smith instead of opposing him...unless you want to join my church.

 

As a Catholic, I oppose Pope Francis because he seems to be departing from centuries of continuous teaching on the same subject, marriage. Maybe he will stop short of imposing immorality on the Catholic Church. Time will tell. He is #265 after St. Peter who was # 1. I think I have a liberty to doubt #265 if he is in opposition to the other 264. But as an LDS, you are attacking your prime prophet, the first, # 1. He who started a Restoration. It would be like me accusing St. Peter himself. In my opinion, whatever the state of my church is, it is certain that your church is dead (stillborn) and apostate, if your accusations against Joseph Smith are correct.

[Matt1074]

Isaiah 4:1

The women spoken of in that passage had no husbands to begin with. If those seven women had already had husbands they wouldn't have needed to all cling to one man just for the sake of his name to take away their reproach. They would have already had a man's name they had taken and thereby had their reproach taken away previously.

 

I'm starting to feel like an anti-LDS commentator here, and I'm not, but these answers that are being given are knowingly false, such as this one here or the idea that these questions go in circles. They do not, there are concrete answers and unfortunately I'm forced to realize I have already found them given the intentionally misleading answers presented here.

 

If JS was a fallen prophet even sooner than D&C132 then I don't know what else to think other than he was.

[Matt1074]

How can you say the Prophet Joseph Smith was wrong about who he could lawfully marry in the eyes of your God, and then believe what he says about the apostasy of my church?  In my opinion, you can't have Joseph Smith being right about something as obscure to a New York farm kid in the early 1800's as the Catholic Church with all of its centuries of Tradition, and wrong about his own weddings. If I were you, I would figure out a way to defend Joseph Smith instead of opposing him...unless you want to join my church.

 

As a Catholic, I oppose Pope Francis because he seems to be departing from centuries of continuous teaching on the same subject, marriage. Maybe he will stop short of imposing immorality on the Catholic Church. Time will tell. He is #265 after St. Peter who was # 1. I think I have a liberty to doubt #265 if he is in opposition to the other 264. But as an LDS, you are attacking your prime prophet, the first, # 1. He who started a Restoration. It would be like me accusing St. Peter himself. In my opinion, whatever the state of my church is, it is certain that your church is dead (stillborn) and apostate, if your accusations against Joseph Smith are correct.

Apples and oranges, as you assume JS and Peter are of the same caliber of people. I don't know if they were or not, but it would seem not. Obviously not all apostles are created equal, as Judas clearly showed us, so making the argument that they then must be after we know they are not doesn't make any sense. JS could easily have erred far more than Peter and still be the LDS #1, and since we know JS did err more than Peter even by JS's own words I don't really know what you're trying to say. Do I have no right to say Peter was wrong when he denied Christ three times? Of course not, because of course he was. Does that mean he wasn't an apostle of Christ? Of course not, but you would seem to say those in the LDS Church must say that JS is not our #1 if he had any faults at all and we are willing to address them.

[Pahoran]

You're not addressing anything I've said, only saying "no no no no!" That hardly adds to the discussion. If JS married women who were already married to other living men, that is adultery. If he married girls who were 14 years old, that at least today is pedophilia although I concede that age of consent at that time was likely even younger than 14, it is still disturbing. I hear lots of apple to oranges comparisons with the founders of the U.S. not being perfect people either. Did any of them marry a 14 year old girl? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion beyond "no no no no!"

 

While your contribution seems to amount to,"I've made up my mind based on the broad brush strokes!  If you try to confuse me with details you're either watering it down or lying to me!"

 

So Matt, have you made up your mind based on the broad brush strokes?

 

Do you actually want to consider facts that might show his actions in a different light, or are you offended by the thought that anyone could see these matters any differently than you choose to?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sleeper Cell]

Thank you, and  yes I have questions. Is JS a fallen prophet? He was dead in less than one year after D&C 132 was published, so I can't help but think there was a reason for his sudden departure after that section was "revealed" to him. I realize prophets in the OT were quite a troubled lot, but I have not found anything near JS's behavior in those chosen of Christ to spread His Church on earth, so JS does not get to be compared with OT prophets, but NT prophets, and it does not appear he measured up, so I ask again, is he a fallen prophet? The "truth and light" I was truly overwhelmed by at my baptism, and the peace and comfort I get from living the Gospel makes no sense to me if JS was not called of God, but his behavior speaks of one who then fell, and the LDS Church's extreme difficulties because of polygamy would also speak to D&C 132 not being of God. I do not know how I could have been given the Gift of the Holy Spirit any other way, but adultery (14 years is painfully young, even in the mid 1800's but for the sake of focusing on my question I will move past the pedophile issue) is as serious as it gets short of murder, and as has been pointed out JS would not have been the first prophet to fall.

 

Perhaps the reason you find so little to criticize in the personal lives of the NT prophets is that we know very little about their personal lives.  Unlike the lives of the OT and latter day prophets.  

 

I still do not understand why you insist on holding a 19th century prophet to a 21st century standard, while not holding OT prophets to the same standard.   We proclaim that non-Mormons will be judged  according to the light and knowledge they have received.  Shouldn’t we extend the same tolerance to Joseph Smith, at least when it comes to marriage age?  And if we are going to condemn former generations for not living up to the "high” moral standards of our generation, are we willing to be judged by the standards of future generations (say, during the Millennium)?  (BTW, the people of 19th century America -- with all their moral failings -- may have a word or two to say about the moral standards of our generation.)

 

What about Abraham and Isaac?  Yes, Abraham was stopped at the last second from killing Isaac, but what he did do up to that point still constitutes, by today’s standards,  horrific child abuse and attempted murder. Saying that he was not a NT prophet; therefore must be judged by the standards of his day, does not explain why the NT not only fails to condemn  this “child abuser” as a fallen prophet, but actually honors him for his very act of “child abuse“. For example:

 

By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac .. accounting that God was able to raise him up”  [Heb 11:17-19]

 

When I attended protestant churches, it was not unusual for pastors to speak of the sacrifice (or “child abuse”) of Isaac as both a real event and as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ 

 

Absent the belief that God specifically commanded these actions -- and judging solely by 21st century standards -- I find Abraham’s “child abuse” far more reprehensible than that of Joseph Smith. 

Edited October 20, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[Robert F. Smith]

"But the sole object of worship, God the Eternal Father, stands supreme and alone, and it is in the name of the Only Begotten that we thus approach Him, as Christ taught always."

     The First Presidency

(15 Improvement Era 483-485 (April 1912))

Does the Mormon Church have canon lawyers?

[Matt1074]

While your contribution seems to amount to,"I've made up my mind based on the broad brush strokes!  If you try to confuse me with details you're either watering it down or lying to me!"

 

So Matt, have you made up your mind based on the broad brush strokes?

 

Do you actually want to consider facts that might show his actions in a different light, or are you offended by the thought that anyone could see these matters any differently than you choose to?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Vague and meaningless catch phrases do not impress me. These are not broad brush strokes I have come across, they are specifically detailed as my posts show. The answers I have been given so far are not accurate, so that is not baseless statement on my part either. If I had made up my mind I would not be here, but trying to brush me aside with meaningless statements such as these does not help. You may not like what I have to say, but you are not refuting it, merely getting upset at it.

 

Now that you have posted your meaningless string of catch phrases what facts would you like to contribute to this discussion? I am sincerely interested, and if you have any I welcome them.

[Matt1074]

 

Perhaps the reason you find so little to criticize in the personal lives of the NT prophets is that we know very little about their personal lives.  Unlike the lives of the OT and latter day prophets.  

 

I still do not understand why you insist on holding a 19th century prophet to a 21st century standard, while not holding OT prophets to the same standard.   We proclaim that non-Mormons will be judged  according to the light and knowledge they have received.  Shouldn’t we extend the same tolerance to Joseph Smith, at least when it comes to marriage age?  And if we are going to condemn former generations for not living up to the "high” moral standards of our generation, are we willing to be judged by the standards of future generations (say, during the Millennium)?  (BTW, the people of 19th century America -- with all their moral failings -- may have a word or two to say about the moral standards of our generation.)

 

What about Abraham and Isaac?  Yes, Abraham was stopped at the last second from killing Isaac, but what he did do up to that point still constitutes, by today’s standards,  horrific child abuse and attempted murder. Saying that he was not a NT prophet; therefore must be judged by the standards of his day, does not explain why the NT not only fails to condemn  this “child abuser” as a fallen prophet, but actually honors him for his very act of “child abuse“. For example:

 

 

 

When I attended protestant churches, it was not unusual for pastors to speak of the sacrifice (or “child abuse”) of Isaac as both a real event and as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ 

 

Absent the belief that God specifically commanded these actions -- and judging solely by 21st century standards -- I find Abraham’s “child abuse” far more reprehensible than that of Joseph Smith. 

 

I would agree with you, but I can only address so many things at one time and Abraham is beyond me. I long ago knew that I would not have acted as Abraham did, and if this means I am disobedient then that is what it means.

 

I don't accept your belief that my 100-150 years ago comparisons then mandate I also apply those to things that happened 1000s of years ago. That is pretty silly to be honest. The OT was what it was, but the NT fulfilled the prophecy and ushered in a very different path to follow, so yes, I hold JS above the OT prophets. If he was not what is the point? To go back to OT ways and ignore the entire life of Christ?

 

Your post also does not address any of the forced adultery issues that D&C 132 mandate for at least JS or his wives who already were married to other men, as well as the mandate that those women be virgins, which they obviously were not.

[3DOP]

Apples and oranges, as you assume JS and Peter are of the same caliber of people. I don't know if they were or not, but it would seem not. Obviously not all apostles are created equal, as Judas clearly showed us, so making the argument that they then must be after we know they are not doesn't make any sense. JS could easily have erred far more than Peter and still be the LDS #1, and since we know JS did err more than Peter even by JS's own words I don't really know what you're trying to say. Do I have no right to say Peter was wrong when he denied Christ three times? Of course not, because of course he was. Does that mean he wasn't an apostle of Christ? Of course not, but you would seem to say those in the LDS Church must say that JS is not our #1 if he had any faults at all and we are willing to address them.

 

Hi Matt 1074.

 

According to how I am understanding it, The Prophet of God's Restoration is accused by Mormons, of getting into bed with other men's wives, and hiding it without repenting.

 

I am only saying that If I were LDS, I would lose confidence in his proclaimed mission at that point. I would think that maybe his motives were impure and that it was unlikely that God would use such a filthy instrument when there were not a few men who were faithful to their wedding vows in the 19th Century. I do not believe Joseph Smith was guilty as has been charged, but if it doesn't bother you to have a pig for a prophet, who am I to object? Its your religion. Carry on. Be sure to include it in your Sunday School lessons and missionary outreach. I think you will find that it is incompatible with most people's ideas of the necessary holiness of the one soul who God would call to restore Christianity after more than a millenium without a true church on earth.  

Edited October 20, 2014 by 3DOP

[Matt1074]

Hi Matt 1074.

 

According to how I am understanding it, The Prophet of God's Restoration is accused by Mormons, of getting into bed with other men's wives, and hiding it without repenting.

 

I am only saying that If I were LDS, I would lose confidence in his proclaimed mission at that point. I would think that maybe his motives were impure and that it was unlikely that God would use such a filthy instrument when there were not a few men who were faithful to their wedding vows in the 19th Century. I do not believe Joseph Smith was guilty as has been charged, but if it doesn't bother you to have a pig for a prophet, who am I to object? Its your religion. Carry on. Be sure to include it in your Sunday School lessons and missionary outreach. I think you will find that it is incompatible with most people's ideas of the necessary holiness of the one soul who God would call to restore Christianity after more than a millenium without a true church on earth.  

First of all, where is the edit function for these posts.

 

Second, if you don't believe JS committed adultery tell me what you make of polygamy in general and especially with women who were already married to living husbands who then continued living with them after the marriage to JS. I'm having a hard time with this an a LDS, but for you I don't see how you can possibly think it wasn't adultery.

 

I'm sure there have been many pigs for prophets, or at least who went pig after they drank too much of their own bath water. Obviously David did, so it's not like it doesn't happen.

[JLHPROF]

What about Abraham and Isaac?  Yes, Abraham was stopped at the last second from killing Isaac, but what he did do up to that point still constitutes, by today’s standards,  horrific child abuse and attempted murder. Saying that he was not a NT prophet; therefore must be judged by the standards of his day, does not explain why the NT not only fails to condemn  this “child abuser” as a fallen prophet, but actually honors him for his very act of “child abuse“. For example:

 

 

I think child abuse is a bit strong considering tradition has Isaac as about 37 at the time of the aborted sacrifice....

[Pahoran]

Vague and meaningless catch phrases do not impress me. These are not broad brush strokes I have come across, they are specifically detailed as my posts show. The answers I have been given so far are not accurate, so that is not baseless statement on my part either. If I had made up my mind I would not be here, but trying to brush me aside with meaningless statements such as these does not help. You may not like what I have to say, but you are not refuting it, merely getting upset at it.

 

Now that you have posted your meaningless string of catch phrases what facts would you like to contribute to this discussion? I am sincerely interested, and if you have any I welcome them.

 

 

It's so generous of you, with your whole 19 posts, to welcome my contribution.  Far from being upset with your old chestnuts, I'm all choked up.

 

To assume that someone who marries a 14-year-old is a "pedophile" is to make certain assumptions about (1) the age of marriage at the time, and (2) the nature of that marriage in particular.

 

I suspect you are uninterested in canvassing these questions, because I think you prefer to view the matter in the broad brush strokes.

 

But if you were willing to question your assumptions, you'd find that the "pedophile" accusation is unsustainable.

That is why no informed people are making it.

 

So Matt, are you willing to question your assumptions?  If you are, then there are facts that show Joseph's actions in a considerably more favourable light.

 

But if not, then I won't waste your time.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Matt1074]

It's so generous of you, with your whole 19 posts, to welcome my contribution.  Far from being upset with your old chestnuts, I'm all choked up.

 

To assume that someone who marries a 14-year-old is a "pedophile" is to make certain assumptions about (1) the age of marriage at the time, and (2) the nature of that marriage in particular.

 

I suspect you are uninterested in canvassing these questions, because I think you prefer to view the matter in the broad brush strokes.

 

But if you were willing to question your assumptions, you'd find that the "pedophile" accusation is unsustainable.

That is why no informed people are making it.

 

So Matt, are you willing to question your assumptions?  If you are, then there are facts that show Joseph's actions in a considerably more favourable light.

 

But if not, then I won't waste your time.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

You're not contributing. Re-read my posts and note that I do not in any way put my own thoughts into it, merely assess what is there. You're assertion that no informed people are claiming JS engaged in what today would be pedophilia is you putting your thoughts into the discussion because of course marrying a 14 year old would be pedophilia and many people have noted that and also noted that while not unheard of it certainly wasn't something men like the founders of the U.S. were doing back then, so why did JS feel the need to do so? Still, in the mid 1800's it was not pedophilia and so I moved on from that issue long ago, why is it you are now so hung up on it?

 

So perhaps it is I that should be asking you if you are willing to put away your assumptions and assess the facts I have presented, or will you just keep up with your meaningless catch phrases and apparent sense of superiority because you frequent the internet and post more than I do on internet forums. This is a pretty big red flag about what kind of person I'm dealing with just so you know-most people don't brag about their internet time, it's not something that makes you an authority on anything anymore than my lack of internet time does not make me an authority.

 

In all fairness, your inability to present facts and for the second time merely make your own assumptions as well as take some authoritative position because you frequent this forum site more than I do probably makes you a less than an ideal candidate for me to seek answers from, but again, should you have anything to actually contribute it would still be welcome.

[Matt1074]

It never really did.  Many men are sealed to multiple women in the eternities.  The last prophet of the Church that current teaching would say is sitting up in heaven with two wives would be Pres. Hunter who only died in 1995.  And the practice continues today.

Plural marriage was an eternal principle.  It was restored through God's prophet in D&C 132, and revoked temporarily due to civil and political issues in 1904.

This just occurred to me, but if this is the case, and D&C 132 still stands but has only been put on hold because of temporal inconvenience, then you do realize that the FLDS is a more true and correct church than the LDS is? I'm pretty blown away by this to be honest. Today has been quite an eye opener.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm good with the song, though hard for me to sing. I'm uncomfortable singing it is sacrament meeting. Ans so much more uncomfortable singing it as the closing song when there has been no mention of Christ in any of the talks that day.

The song itself mentions Christ -- twice in the first two lines. And it acknowledges Jesus's divinity in anointing Joseph to open the last dispensation. There is a sermon here about Christ governing in the affairs of mortals while working through a chosen vessel.

There are a number of appropriate occasions in which to sing it, but none moreso than sacrament meeting.

And I don't believe I have ever experienced a sacrament meeting in which there has been no mention of Christ.

Interestingly, the theme of our meeting today was supposed to be tithes and offerings. But I perceived little to no mention of that subject. Instead, the sermons and music dealt directly with the mission, majesty, holiness and benevolence of the Savior.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Svawd]

I look at it this way, even if he didn't have a sexual relationship with the other wive's. He was still in the wrong looking for young girls, married women,and others to be a wife. I also believe that he hurt some married relationships.

[Pahoran]

You're not contributing. Re-read my posts and note that I do not in any way put my own thoughts into it, merely assess what is there.

I agree. You've put very little thought into it.

 

You're assertion that no informed people are claiming JS engaged in what today would be pedophilia is you putting your thoughts into the discussion because of course marrying a 14 year old would be pedophilia and many people have noted that and also noted that while not unheard of it certainly wasn't something men like the founders of the U.S. were doing back then, so why did JS feel the need to do so? Still, in the mid 1800's it was not pedophilia and so I moved on from that issue long ago, why is it you are now so hung up on it?

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

You were the one who raised the subject of "pedophilia." 

And in so doing, you were assuming facts not in evidence.

 

So perhaps it is I that should be asking you if you are willing to put away your assumptions and assess the facts I have presented,

How many times must we address the same hoary old chestnuts?

You come rushing in here all out of breath because you've just "found out the truth" -- meaning, you've come across something you didn't know about before. You assume that, having these factoids in your hands, you now know the whole story (you don't) and that we can't possibly have heard about them before (we have.) You giggle like an excited schoolboy about the "eleven women!!!" (gasp, shock, horror) but, like most single-source "experts" it probably hasn't even occurred to you to find out how many children Joseph had. So how can you possibly imagine that you know all there is to know about his life?

 

or will you just keep up with your meaningless catch phrases and apparent sense of superiority because you frequent the internet and post more than I do on internet forums. This is a pretty big red flag about what kind of person I'm dealing with just so you know-most people don't brag about their internet time, it's not something that makes you an authority on anything anymore than my lack of internet time does not make me an authority.

The point, Newbie, is that you are in a state of high dudgeon about very old news. Something you might have realised had you bothered to read a little more before rushing out with your breath-taking "discovery."

 

In all fairness, your inability to present facts and for the second time merely make your own assumptions as well as take some authoritative position because you frequent this forum site more than I do probably makes you a less than an ideal candidate for me to seek answers from, but again, should you have anything to actually contribute it would still be welcome.

See, this is where you are being rather obtuse. It's not for you to tell me what is "welcome." This isn't your forum, nor even your thread. It's VideoGameJunkie's thread, and he gets to decide what is "welcome" in it. There is a culture associated with fora like this one; it used to be called "Netiquette," and it requires that you be a little less presumptuous about such matters.

Each of us is free to discuss the topic within the forum rules, and I don't need a complete noob to tell me what is and isn't "welcome."

So, you have raised a subject that had been thoroughly canvassed and discussed, long before you even heard of this site. In casually and unthinkingly assuming that Joseph was guilty of "pedophilia" and "adultery," you have demonstrated that you have done very little thinking about this matter; you have uncritically accepted everything Joseph's unprincipled enemies have said on the subject, but have made up for that by regarding everything that might possibly be said in his defence with the utmost suspicion. Now I'm quite happy to show you the flaws in your assumptions, but first you have to confront the fact that you have made assumptions. You seem entirely oblivious to them, which shows that you need to engage in a little bit of introspection.

So here is a fact that not only shows the flaws in your assumptions, it highlights the fact that those assumptions exist in the first place: you probably didn't know this -- because your anti-Mormon source didn't tell you -- but Helen Mar Kimball never lived with Joseph as his wife. After the sealing, in which her father officiated, she went back home and lived with her parents until after Joseph was killed.

So tell us again: in what century would that constitute "pedophilia?"

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Silhouette]

I think it was wrong for already married women to be sealed to a prophet, since they already had a husband. They should've been sealed to their husband. If I was that husband I would be super angry. Weren't there enough single women to be sealed to?

I didn't realize until joining this forum that Joseph did this. It bothers me, too.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Silhouette