jospeh the con man?

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, blueglass said:

The original JST - (unfortunately this reference was dropped from our current 1981, 2013 scriptures) concurred with Martin Luther, that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide), Rom 3:28 Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law.  

Mormons don't teach much different.  Salvation requires acceptance of Christ as Lord.  Christ said that none will be lost but the sons of Perdition.  That all others would be saved.

It's getting beyond that point that our traditional Christian friends don't like to tread.

[blueglass]

On 11/12/2017 at 5:11 PM, bluebell said:

I know that's how you see it.  I see it differently.

But to go back to the bolded statement, for con men, the payout has to exceed the cost.  Considering what starting the church cost JS, compared to what he gained, the evidence doesn't equal con man to me.  

I respect the view that Joseph was inspired in many aspects.  When wading through the modern news cycles with stories about sexual harassment how do you avoid thinking of parallels with joseph's personal relationships as a believing latter-day saint?  for me, I just wish I could go back to when I had never read the histories,  in sacred loneliness, hales reversals on sylvia sessions, mormon enigma, etc. and could return to the mission days when we listened to all of the tapes by Truman G Madsen.  When I read about the Alabama politician Roy Moore dating young high school girls while in his 30's, I think of Joseph Smith, and Sarah and Maria Lawrence, Flora ann, nancy winchester, Fanny alger, sarah Whitney, and others and I worry that defending joseph smith makes me into a monster.  

Edited November 13, 2017 by blueglass

[blueglass]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Mormons don't teach much different.  Salvation requires acceptance of Christ as Lord.  Christ said that none will be lost but the sons of Perdition.  That all others would be saved.

It's getting beyond that point that our traditional Christian friends don't like to tread.

"at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"   "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, blueglass said:

"at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"   "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"

And LDS very much believe that.   

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I respect the view that Joseph was inspired in many aspects.  When wading through the modern news cycles with stories about sexual harassment how do you avoid thinking of parallels with joseph's personal relationships as a believing latter-day saint?  for me, I just wish I could go back to when I had never read the histories,  in sacred loneliness, hales reversals on sylvia sessions, mormon enigma, etc. and could return to the mission days when we listened to all of the tapes by Truman G Madsen.  When I read about the Alabama politician Roy Moore dating young high school girls while in his 30's, I think of Joseph Smith, and Sarah and Maria Lawrence, Flora ann, nancy winchester, Fanny alger, sarah Whitney, and others and I worry that defending joseph smith makes me into a monster.  

I see a man with many wives, no different than a man with one except in number.
There are many who see evil where there is no evidence of evil in my opinion.  And we've been down this rabbit hole so many times that I have become convinced that it is all an issue of perspective.  People see what they want (myself included).
If you are looking for evil child molesting polygamy you'll find it.  If you are looking for faithful righteous polygamists you'll find them too.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I respect the view that Joseph was inspired in many aspects.  When wading through the modern news cycles with stories about sexual harassment how do you avoid thinking of parallels with joseph's personal relationships as a believing latter-day saint?  for me, I just wish I could go back to when I had never read the histories,  in sacred loneliness, hales reversals on sylvia sessions, mormon enigma, etc. and could return to the mission days when we listened to all of the tapes by Truman G Madsen.  When I read about the Alabama politician Roy Moore dating young high school girls while in his 30's, I think of Joseph Smith, and Sarah and Maria Lawrence, Flora ann, nancy winchester, Fanny alger, sarah Whitney, and others and I worry that defending joseph smith makes me into a monster.  

I think my schooling studying history helps me a bit, just because i've had experience with seeing how easy it is to interpret details to fit more than one narrative and it also helps me not to get stuck in presentism.  

Basically, I try to remember the things that I don't know and the things that I do.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

The original JST - (unfortunately this reference was dropped from our current 1981, 2013 scriptures) concurred with Martin Luther, that we are saved by faith alone (sola fide), Rom 3:28 Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law.  

Joseph did agree with the translation, but not for all the same reasons.  For an in-depth look at the topic, I recommend this excellent essay by Kevin Barney:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/bookchapters/Bountiful_Harvest_Essays_in_Honor_of_S_Kent_Brown/BountifulHarvest-Barney.pdf

The reasons that Martin Luther gave for including the word "alone" in the translation were 1) the word "alone" was used as an adverb and not as an adjective, 2) it was used for clarity in translation, 3) it was theologically necessary to support 'sola fidea' (a point rejected by his Catholic critics), and 4) he argued that early father's before him employed similar usage, including Augustine.  In the end, the Catholic Church didn't think the inclusion of the word "alone" distorted the original non-sola-fidea meaning of the verse.

So, what were Joseph's reasons?  Clearly Joseph would not have known about reason #4, so we can exclude that.  As to reason #3, Joseph clearly was not pushing solifidian theology as he did not subscribe to that idea.  This is made clear by other JST translations of the Bible including Romans 4:16:

Quote

Therefore it is ye are justified of faith, that it might be by and works, through grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that them only which is who are of the law, but to that them also which is who are of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all

So Joseph probably included the word "alone" for Luther's reason #1 or #2, but not for number 3 (as it seems that you are asserting), or 4. 

Kevin Barney:

Quote

In conclusion, the effect of Joseph’s insertion of alone in Romans 3:28 JST is, I believe, well captured by this text from a popular Bible commentary on that verse: There is no problem in adding the word “alone” to the word “faith”—a tradition that goes way back beyond Luther, at least to Aquinas—as long as we recognize what it means: not that a person is “converted” by faith alone without moral effort. . . , nor that God’s grace is always prior to human response . . . but that the badge that enables all alike to stand on the same, flat ground at the foot of the cross, is faith.

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by pogi

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I see a man with many wives, no different than a man with one except in number.
There are many who see evil where there is no evidence of evil in my opinion.  And we've been down this rabbit hole so many times that I have become convinced that it is all an issue of perspective.  People see what they want (myself included).
If you are looking for evil child molesting polygamy you'll find it.  If you are looking for faithful righteous polygamists you'll find them too.

Since, as far as i know, none of the young women that JS was connected with were prepubescent, I don't think there's any evidence that he molested children.  I know you understand that, but some people, confused by our current society's laws which consider all people under the age of 18 to be children, forget what a pedophile actually is.

[Jane_Doe]

30 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I respect the view that Joseph was inspired in many aspects.  When wading through the modern news cycles with stories about sexual harassment how do you avoid thinking of parallels with joseph's personal relationships as a believing latter-day saint? 

 I know better than to judge another person, particularly one that was living in a different world and in both cases I'm missing a ton of information.  Sorry, but such judgement is simply not on the forefront of my mind.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Since, as far as i know, none of the young women that JS was connected with were prepubescent, I don't think there's any evidence that he molested children.  I know you understand that, but some people, confused by our current society's laws which consider all people under the age of 18 to be children, forget what a pedophile actually is.

Not just the prepubescence issue, but regardless of average age of marriage (statistical number), there is also the term "marriageable age" - ie, the age at which society accepted marriage of an individual.  In society of that time a young woman was "out in society" by 16, ready to receive suitors, courtships, etc.  (Debutantes, Coming Out parties, Introduction to society etc).

People debate back and forth about what was the normal age to marry, but that isn't the right question.  The right question is at what age did that society consider marriage acceptable.

With only two exceptions, none of Joseph's wives were too young for marriage, let alone prepubescent targets for pedophiles.  And there is very little evidence of physical relationship with most of Joseph's plural wives, let alone the outliers by age.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Not just the prepubescence issue, but regardless of average age of marriage (statistical number), there is also the term "marriageable age" - ie, the age at which society accepted marriage of an individual.  In society of that time a young woman was "out in society" by 16, ready to receive suitors, courtships, etc.  (Debutantes, Coming Out parties, Introduction to society etc).

People debate back and forth about what was the normal age to marry, but that isn't the right question.  The right question is at what age did that society consider marriage acceptable.

Yes, it was a different world then.  For a different example, a lot of historians estimate that Mary the mother of Jesus was 14 when she bore Him.  

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Yes, it was a different world then.  For a different example, a lot of historians estimate that Mary the mother of Jesus was 14 when she bore Him.  

Those same historians speculate St. Joseph was much older than 30 as well.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Those same historians speculate St. Joseph was much older than 30 as well.

It was their world.  A older male was more established and better able to provide for his family.  A younger female was more likely to survive child-birth.

These are things we just don't think about in our world today.  

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

its not the bible that tells us if we will go to heaven. It's the holy spirit.

So, without any written word and no one to teach you anything, You'd become a Mormon all on your own? I means the Holy Spirit talks to you all the time and you can tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and say a demon without any perameters?

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I think this is an important point. Whether or not the Bible is infallible is besides the point.  The problem in understanding and interpreting the word of God ultimately boils down to the fallibility of man.  Whether or not the Bible is infallible doesn't really matter, because in the end, we are saying the same thing.  We are saying that the Bible can only be understood properly through the Holy Spirit. 

In the end, it doesn't really matter what the Bible says, what really matters is what the Holy Spirit teaches you about it.  You can point to the Bible all day long as "proof" of your claims, but how does that convince me that your interpretation is not without error?  Even if the Bible is without error, you cannot guarantee me that your interpretation is not without error.  That is why personal revelation/Holy Spirit is more essential and critical in understanding and conversion to the Word of God.

 This is a perfect example to prove my point above.  Abram and Sari had no Bible, yet God revealed Himself to them.  Do you see how Christians knowledge DOES NOT actually "originate with the Bible" as you claim?  It originates with revelation - with prophets.  So, which is more essential, infallible revelation/Holy Spirit, or the Bible which is subject to false interpretations?

Abraham and Sarah were not living in the Age of Grace where we now reside. We have the written revelations ---- the question always returns to how much specifics is enough? If more is necessary why weren't the Apostles aware it. If they were told it by Jesus then why didn't they write it down when they wrote everything else down? If they forgot, why didn't the Holy Spirit remind them as Christ said the HS would? And if the prophet is the key to correct knowledge, why isn't the Pope? And if the reality is that the Pope was proven wrong by a thorough  prayerful study of the Bible, why would anyone accept the declarations from a so-named prophet without comparison to that very same standard  ---- the written word.

The protestant understanding is that GOD reveals to each individual believer through the Holy Spirit what He wishes that individual to comprehend. If an individual is only bent on proving his own interpretation, how can those dependent on such an individual for the truth (not reading it for themselves) not receive anything but distortion? In other words, the church I attend regards the Bible as our standard. Everything is weighed in accordance with what the Bible says. Even a "word of knowledge" would be examined in accordance with the Bible. If it contradicts the Word,  if the sermon contradicts the Word, if an interpretation of a verse contradicts other verses of the Bible without a contextual understand founded within the Bible, then all such values would be discarded as unbiblical.

When Christ died on the cross, He did more than die for our sins, He freed individuals to come directly to GOD the Father without a go-between. I do not need to confess my sins to a priest. I go directly to God the Father by way of Jesus through the means of the Holy Spirit. I do not need anyone to explain to me what the true meaning of a Bible passage is, I can study the Bible myself and prayerfully ask GOD through Christ by the Holy Spirit for clarification. I reject the pope and I reject a prophet mediator. Those who depend on some leader are placing themselves under subjection to that individual when Christ has clearly freed the slaves to go directly to GOD. The saved are adopted children of God and Jesus becomes their Heavenly Brother. Why would anyone wish to replace that with a return to the legal system existing during the Age of the LAW.

I am free and not under subjection to any earthly religious authority. What would I gain by being a slave to religious jurisdiction when I can be one with Jesus?

Edited November 14, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Jane_Doe]

21 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

You said:

I have placed my faith and trust in Jesus.  Therefore, according to your beliefs I am saved.

Do you acknowledge this, @LittleNipper?

*bump*

[Gray]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Those same historians speculate St. Joseph was much older than 30 as well.

There is no historical data on the ages of Mary or Joseph.

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The protestant understanding is that GOD reveals to each individual believer through the Holy Spirit what He wishes that individual to comprehend. If an individual is only bent on proving his own interpretation, how can those dependent on such an individual for the truth (not reading it for themselves) not receive anything but distortion? In other words, the church I attend regards the Bible as our standard. Everything is weighed in accordance with what the Bible says. Even a "word of knowledge" would be examined in accordance with the Bible. If it contradicts the Word,  if the sermon contradicts the Word, if an interpretation of a verse contradicts other verses of the Bible without a contextual understand founded within the Bible, then all such values would be discarded as unbiblical.

One must again ask who gets to say what the Word is actually saying?  Your discourse on baptism for one, saying that being born of the water means the natal fluid. That is not found in the scriptures but is a strained interpretation that goes against the words that John uttered when he told the people that he baptized with water (Mark 1:8 among others) but there was one coming that would baptize with the spirit. Your method has led to an explosion of Christian denominations. It started with only one, and they now number something like forty thousand denominations which lay claim to being Christian. And who authorized those other thirty nine thousand, nine, hundred, and ninety-nine denominations when the Bible declares that "no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron?" (Hebrews 5:4)

And who is authorized to determine by interpretation why most of those Christian denominations deny the Biblical need for prophets when the Bible declares that:

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:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians, Chapter 4)

And even before that, Amos (a prophet) declared : "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

And finally an apostle called by Jesus Christ Himself has declared ""that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

The things that you are espousing are really extra Biblical.

Glenn

[LittleNipper]

24 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

One must again ask who gets to say what the Word is actually saying?  Your discourse on baptism for one, saying that being born of the water means the natal fluid. That is not found in the scriptures but is a strained interpretation that goes against the words that John uttered when he told the people that he baptized with water (Mark 1:8 among others) but there was one coming that would baptize with the spirit. Your method has led to an explosion of Christian denominations. It started with only one, and they now number something like forty thousand denominations which lay claim to being Christian. And who authorized those other thirty nine thousand, nine, hundred, and ninety-nine denominations when the Bible declares that "no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron?" (Hebrews 5:4)

And who is authorized to determine by interpretation why most of those Christian denominations deny the Biblical need for prophets when the Bible declares that:

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:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians, Chapter 4)

And even before that, Amos (a prophet) declared : "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

And finally an apostle called by Jesus Christ Himself has declared ""that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

The things that you are espousing are really extra Biblical.

Glenn

But see even John says he only immerses in water ---it is the immersion by the Spirit that counts. There is nothing wrong with various denominations, this is how GOD keeps all of Christendom on it's toes! Most all agree on the important things, it's the fine-tuning that keeps Christians in the word. You overlooked the most important part concerning interpretation --- it's the Holy Spirit who now provides it to anyone who cares to listen to Him.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There is no historical data on the ages of Mary or Joseph.

No. But there are cultural norms for their society and religious practices.  And at that time Jewish girls were betrothed around 12-14. Why suspect Mary to be different?

And that's without referring to the numerous apocryphal and non-contemporary  texts on the subject.

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No. But there are cultural norms for their society and religious practices.  And at that time Jewish girls were betrothed around 12-14. Why suspect Mary to be different?

And that's without referring to the numerous apocryphal and non-contemporary  texts on the subject.

Yes, you can point to norms and say it may have happened a certain way. Of course you can also point to the time/place and conclude that it's possible or even likely that Mary could have been raped by a Roman soldier (they were in the area quashing a local rebellion) and conceived Jesus that way. She was in the right time/place for that to have happened to her, sadly.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

In other words, the church I attend regards the Bible as our standard. Everything is weighed in accordance with what the Bible says.

11 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The protestant understanding is that GOD reveals to each individual believer through the Holy Spirit what He wishes that individual to comprehend. 

To simplify our discussion, I want to hone in on this point. 

Please help me understand how your response is an answer to my question:

Quote

I think this is an important point. Whether or not the Bible is infallible is besides the point.  The problem in understanding and interpreting the word of God ultimately boils down to the fallibility of man.  Whether or not the Bible is infallible doesn't really matter, because in the end, we are saying the same thing.  We are saying that the Bible can only be understood properly through the Holy Spirit. 

In the end, it doesn't really matter what the Bible says, what really matters is what the Holy Spirit teaches you about it.  You can point to the Bible all day long as "proof" of your claims, but how does that convince me that your interpretation is not without error?  Even if the Bible is without error, you cannot guarantee me that your interpretation is not without error.  That is why personal revelation/Holy Spirit is more essential and critical in understanding and conversion to the Word of God.

In other words, what good is the Bible as a standard without the Holy Ghost when you admit that it is only through the Holy Ghost that we can understand the proper meaning and interpretation of the Bible?  So, when you say that "everything is weighed in accordance with what the Bible says", shouldn't you really be weighing everything in accordance with what the Holy Spirit teaches you what the Bible says?  Otherwise, you are relying on your own fallible human interpretation, which you called a "distortion".  

How can you assure me that your own church's interpretation that you seem bent on pushing here is not a "distortion", except through the Holy Ghost?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, you can point to norms and say it may have happened a certain way. Of course you can also point to the time/place and conclude that it's possible or even likely that Mary could have been raped by a Roman soldier (they were in the area quashing a local rebellion) and conceived Jesus that way. She was in the right time/place for that to have happened to her, sadly.

Wow.  That's your best response to Mary's probable adolescent betrothal to Joseph and motherhood?
To speculate that the only begotten wasn't the only begotten?

Edited November 14, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Wow.  That's your best response to Mary's probable adolescent betrothal to Joseph and motherhood?
To speculate that the only begotten wasn't the only begotten?

Well, that's the trouble with using general sociological data of history to make conclusions about specific historical figures, isn't it? The general data don't always support the conclusions you want to draw from them. Could Mary have been 14? That wouldn't have been unusual, but we have no way of knowing if she was. By that same token we have no way of knowing if her pregnancy was the result of rape. Neither would be surprising, but it's hard to make a conclusion about a specific person just based on that kind of data.

[Rivers]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I see a man with many wives, no different than a man with one except in number.
There are many who see evil where there is no evidence of evil in my opinion.  And we've been down this rabbit hole so many times that I have become convinced that it is all an issue of perspective.  People see what they want (myself included).
If you are looking for evil child molesting polygamy you'll find it.  If you are looking for faithful righteous polygamists you'll find them too.

So would you say that there is nothing inherently immoral about polygamy in and of itself?