Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[sethpayne]

So the problem you have to solve for yourself is whether or not Joseph was a prophet who received divine revelation.

 

Because prophets are always perfect and never make mistakes.  Even on important doctrinal matters.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well you see, I don't believe God would command such a thing. I am in the camp that believes polygamy was wrong and a mistake. From those I've discussed the essays with, we all agree on that point. God did not command Abraham to live polygamy either if I remember correctly.

Have you examined the links I gave here yet?

 

Here they are again:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Marriages_to_young_women

 

Lest you complain again that you were patted on the head and not given the information you needed.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

So you have a perfect understanding of how Joseph was fallible and how he wasn't? I'm impressed.

So I'm supposed to reject Joseph's divine calling based on your say-so? I'm impressed (by your arrogance).

[Scott Lloyd]

Because prophets are always perfect and never make mistakes.  Even on important doctrinal matters.

Again, I believe God is careful about whom He calls to perform sacred work.

 

Joseph was almost removed out of his place for neglecting to obey the commandment.

[stemelbow]

Raw population figures are not helpful to the discussion.

 

What matters is that plural marriage made for an increased number of households for children to be born into in which both parents were faithful and committed to the teachings of the Church and are apt to transmit those values and beliefs to their offspring.

Well we don't know that. We can guess, because we know those who were in such households, but without polygamy there might have been far more househounds with such parents and with that, perhaps, far more children.

[ALarson]

Yes, Prophets can be wrong.  But how many prophets does it take before one decides, ok maybe they are not wrong?  Two or three witnesses might be a starter. (But then again, perhaps Paul is wrong there.  Perhaps its 50 witnesses. )

How many Prophets did it take to decide that Brigham was wrong about not giving blacks the Priesthood?

Edited April 15, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Not without a critical mass of members to withstand the persecution and to spread the gospel globally.

 

Plural marriage facilitated that critical mass into the second and third generations.

We simply don't know that. Not even a little bit.

[bluebell]

Well you see, I don't believe God would command such a thing. I am in the camp that believes polygamy was wrong and a mistake. From those I've discussed the essays with, we all agree on that point. God did not command Abraham to live polygamy either if I remember correctly.

 

I agree that there is nothing in the bible that ever says that God commanded anyone to live polygamy.  We do have a scriptural record of one of the prophets of God claiming that someone's plural wives were given to him by God though. 

 

We also know that living polygamy never stopped anyone from being called of God or being labeled as 'righteous' and we have no record of God ever reprimanding any of His prophets for their practice of polygamy (except for taking wives that God did not approve of).  

 

And lastly, we know that the house of Israel, God's chosen people, only came to exist thru and because of polygamy.

 

When we think about polygamy and the bible, I think these are all issues that we have to deal with.  

[carbon dioxide]

Well you see, I don't believe God would command such a thing. I am in the camp that believes polygamy was wrong and a mistake. From those I've discussed the essays with, we all agree on that point. God did not command Abraham to live polygamy either if I remember correctly.

In regards to Abraham, the lack of an express commandment is not evidence that a commandment was not given.  Deut 25:5-10 gives a clear instruction of when a person might be commanded to practice it.  It is not addressed to an unmarried brother by any brother married or single.  We know through the prophet Nathan that God gave David his wives and God would have given him more wives if David remained faithful.  One can believe polygamy is wrong but if one does that, one has to accept the possibility that other things are wrong.   It is slippery slope.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Again, I believe God is careful about whom He calls to perform sacred work.

 

Joseph was almost removed out of his place for neglecting to obey the commandment.

 

I ask this question sincerely. If you're arguing that polygamy must have been true or Joseph would have been removed from his place, how can you be so sure that he wasn't? Can you know for sure that God didn't remove Joseph? Or if God chose to remove Joseph do you know HOW he would do it?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

I ask this question sincerely. If you're arguing that polygamy must have been true or Joseph would have been removed from his place, how can you be so sure that he wasn't? Can you know for sure that God didn't remove Joseph? Or if God chose to remove Joseph do you know HOW he would do it?

So the problem you have to solve for yourself is to determine whether or not Joseph really was a prophet of God.

 

See Moroni 10:3-5.

 

 

We are to use the Book of Mormon in handling objections to the Church. God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ revealed themselves to Joseph Smith in a marvelous vision. After that glorious event, Joseph Smith told a minister about it. Joseph was surprised to hear the minister say that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days, that all such things had ceased. (See JS—H 1:21.)

This remark symbolizes practically all of the objections that have ever been made against the Church by nonmembers and dissident members alike. Namely, they do not believe that God reveals his will today to the Church through prophets of God. All objections, whether they be on abortion, plural marriage, seventh-day worship, etc., basically hinge on whether Joseph Smith and his successors were and are prophets of God receiving divine revelation. Here, then, is a procedure to handle most objections through the use of the Book of Mormon.

First, understand the objection.

Second, give the answer from revelation.

Third, show how the correctness of the answer really depends on whether or not we have modern revelation through modern prophets.

Fourth, explain that whether or not we have modern prophets and revelation really depends on whether the Book of Mormon is true.

Therefore, the only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was His prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation.

 

(Ezra Taft Benson, "The Book of Mormon is the Word of God," Ensign, January 1988)

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

And I'll just say that the Church's survival into and thriving during the 20th century and beyond is due in part to the sacrifice of early Church members in obeying the commandment to practice plurality of wives.

It amazes me, given how many people are converts, what the result is when you ask a class at church how many have polygamy in their heritage (ancestors). The impact was much more far-reaching than simply "raising up seed" --- that was part of it, but it had a strengthening impact that is still felt generations after it was discontinued. 

 

B.H. Roberts's treatment of it (himself a polygamist who fought unsuccessfully to be seated in the House of Representatives because of it) in his section "Still, why?" in CHC is very good. He points out (among other things) that it had tremendous publicity value that continues even today:

 

“I know of no single thing in the New Dispensation that has done so much to keep that dispensation and its major message before

the world as this same principle of plural marriage and the practice of it by the church. It has kept the message well‐nigh constantly before men; through the press, daily, weekly and monthly. It has been the incentive to the multiplication of books on "Mormonism" . . . It has kept the New Dispensation before state legislatures and congress—house and senate. Before successive United States presidents and their cabinets. Before state and territorial courts; and time and again before the Supreme Court of the United States, and through that court has attracted the attention of leaders of thought in all the world.” (B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 6:228)

 

Not that it was the primary reason for it, but it was a major use God put it towards. It is interesting to examine convert and immigration numbers from 1852 to 1890 --- the heyday of polygamy. This, in spite of withering federal and international pressure and publicity against the Church. It was a major means of piquing people's interest and getting their attention in the first place. Still is . . .

[JulieM]

Have you examined the links I gave here yet?

Yes, and I appreciate you doing that. I've already read most of the apologist's comments about polygamy and find them to be completely unconvincing. I just personally do not believe God would command one of HIS Prophets to do things that caused so many so much pain and that involved so many lies and deceptions. Even today the results of these are still affecting members too.

[carbon dioxide]

How many Prophets did it take to decide that Brigham was wrong about not giving blacks the Priesthood?

What is the difference between canonized official doctrine and opinion?  Once something is canonized as Sect 132 has been done, it would be impossible to retract it without pretty much forcing us to question everything else.  And there is no evidence that the the ban was wrong.  Only the explanations given to explain it.  The Church has never apologized for the ban and it never should. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

What is the difference between canonized official doctrine and opinion?  Once something is canonized as Sect 132 has been done, it would be impossible to retract it without pretty much forcing us to question everything else.  And there is no evidence that the the ban was wrong.  Only the explanations given to explain it.  The Church has never apologized for the ban and it never should.

 

But other scriptures have been de-canonized, like the lectures on faith, so it can be done. Did removal of the Lectures destroy the church or cause every member to lose confidence in the prophet?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well we don't know that. We can guess, because we know those who were in such households, but without polygamy there might have been far more househounds with such parents and with that, perhaps, far more children.

I don't believe you've thought this through.

 

Children are far more apt to absorb the values and beliefs of their parents when the parents are united in those values and beliefs.

 

Without plurality of wives, many more women in the Church would have been obliged either to remain single or to settle for marriage to men who were not faithful, committed and devoted to the Church and its teachings. That would have meant more households in which children were less apt to receive the teachings and values of the gospel.

 

You say I don't know this to be true? I say that it stands to reason.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

But other scriptures have been de-canonized, like the lectures on faith, so it can be done. Did removal of the Lectures destroy the church or cause every member to lose confidence in the prophet?

CFR that the Lectures on Faith were ever part of the scriptural canon.

[stemelbow]

It amazes me, given how many people are converts, what the result is when you ask a class at church how many have polygamy in their heritage (ancestors). The impact was much more far-reaching than simply "raising up seed" --- that was part of it, but it had a strengthening impact that is still felt generations after it was discontinued.

And if polygamy never was, no one in the Church would have ancestors that practiced it.

 

B.H. Roberts's treatment of it (himself a polygamist who fought unsuccessfully to be seated in the House of Representatives because of it) in his section "Still, why?" in CHC is very good. He points out (among other things) that it had tremendous publicity value that continues even today:

 

“I know of no single thing in the New Dispensation that has done so much to keep that dispensation and its major message before

the world as this same principle of plural marriage and the practice of it by the church. It has kept the message well‐nigh constantly before men; through the press, daily, weekly and monthly. It has been the incentive to the multiplication of books on "Mormonism" . . . It has kept the New Dispensation before state legislatures and congress—house and senate. Before successive United States presidents and their cabinets. Before state and territorial courts; and time and again before the Supreme Court of the United States, and through that court has attracted the attention of leaders of thought in all the world.” (B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 6:228)

And if it never was, people wouldn't have been so opposed to Mormonism too. We simply don't know if it never was where we would be right now. We might be larger, stronger, more impactful. We would never know.

 

Not that it was the primary reason for it, but it was a major use God put it towards. It is interesting to examine convert and immigration numbers from 1852 to 1890 --- the heyday of polygamy. This, in spite of withering federal and international pressure and publicity against the Church. It was a major means of piquing people's interest and getting their attention in the first place. Still is . . .

Is that why the Church largely distances itself from polygamy whenever the topic comes up?

[JulieM]

Have you examined the links I gave here yet?

 

Here they are again:

 

Lest you complain again that you were patted on the head and not given the information you needed.

Wow, you have such a kind manner about you.

I responded already and thanked you for the info.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, and I appreciate you doing that. I've already read most of the apologist's comments about polygamy and find them to be completely unconvincing. I just personally do not believe God would command one of HIS Prophets to do things that caused so many so much pain and that involved so many lies and deceptions. Even today the results of these are still affecting members too.

I don't know that you've properly considered the content in the links I gave you.

 

If you have, you are entitled to your opinion. But this material at least shows that a plausible case can be made to the contrary.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow, you have such a kind manner about you.

I responded already and thanked you for the info.

The post you are responding to was made before I had a chance to see the one where you thanked me for the info.

[stemelbow]

I don't believe you've thought this through.

 

Children are far more apt to absorb the values and beliefs of their parents when the parents are united in those values and beliefs.

 

Without plurality of wives, many more women in the Church would have been obliged either to remain single or to settle for marriage to men who were not faithful, committed and devoted to the Church and its teachings. That would have meant more households in which children were less apt to receive the teachings and values of the gospel.

 

You say I don't know this to be true? I say that it stands to reason.

not really. If no polygamy perhaps far more would have joined the Church, more men would have been faithful, and women too, for that matter; thus cancelling out any perceived bonus of having more strong members with polygamy. Perhaps by now we'd be 50 million members, and perhaps by 1875 we would have been 1 million strong. We'd never know, of course.

[Buckeye]

CFR that the Lectures on Faith were ever part of the scriptural canon.

 

 

The lectures were published in 1835 as the "Doctrine" portion of the volume entitled Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: Carefully Selected from the Revelations of God. The lectures were selected for that volume by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834, by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee of Presiding Elders, consisting of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, stated that the lectures were included "in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation," and that the lectures, together with the church-regulatory sections that followed, represent "our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body." (See 1835 D&C, Preface.) Accordingly, the church body accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835, as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote" (History of the Church 2: 243–46).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectures_on_Faith

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that why the Church largely distances itself from polygamy whenever the topic comes up?

To the extent that happens (if it happens), I would guess it's because people are apt to get nasty and hostile about it whenever the topic comes up.

 

This thread is a good example.

[JulieM]

I don't know that you've properly considered the content in the links I gave you.

 

If you have, you are entitled to your opinion. But this material at least shows that a plausible case can be made to the contrary.

I don't know that you've properly considered the content in the links I gave you.

"Properly considered"? Do you even realize how you treat people on here?

Um...no, I IMPROPERLY considered the info