jospeh the con man?

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

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?

I became a Saint because I can read, and had the Missionaries testify to the truth of the Restored Gospel. I asked God through the Holy Ghost for confirmation of it. If it was a Demon, then a house divided against itself can not stand.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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.

The custom of the era (which it's fine to be horrified by) was that girls married between 12-14. Mary would almost certainly have been of that age as she'd likely already have been married off otherwise. It's also worth noting that life expectancy was short at such times. Death in child birth was common. But there were no shortage of ways to die. Especially if one was poor on the margins of society.  However even Kings typically died by their mid 40's. Life it the ancient world was brutish and short as many historians have noted. We romanticize the past but it wasn't a good time to live.

While it postdates the birth of Christ, Rabbis later codified the legal marriage age as 12 for girls and 13 for boys. This wasn't unique to Palestine but was also the tradition in Rome and Greece. In Jewish custom boys were expected to be married by 16-17 although sometimes they did not until they were 20. There's no good demographic information for breakdowns of marriage age for Jews in Roman occupied Palestine. Typically scholars look at examples or compare it to Egypt or other surrounding regions where better data can be found.

Part of the reason we marry so much later is simply due to life expectancy. We don't need as many children to survive and because our societies have become so complex we keep extending adolescence. When you need children to work the farms for mere survival many children are important - especially when the majority of your children will die young. That means reproduction is highly valued both from a social perspective but arguably from an evolutionary standard as well. Likewise if you are apt to die before 40, you don't exactly have a lot of life to live. We can push married life to 20's or even 30's simply because of how rich we are and how medicine lets us survive.

The transition really starts in the modern era. By the time of the 19th century the transition was well underway. Despite what some apologists say, marrying younger than 16 was pretty uncommon in the 19th century. Although not unheard of by any means. There's also strong cultural traditions tied to immigration. So in Sweden women married young and men later - sometimes as late as 30. My great grandfather was in his early 20's and my great grandmother was 15. That wasn't uncommon in their region even though it was where they moved to in Canada.

Edited November 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

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

Nothing at all.

[Avatar4321]

16 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

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?

strange hypothetical since how would we be Mormon without the book of Mormon?

doesn't really address my point either.

without the Holy Spirit and revelation, no book would be of any use. The Spirit is the source of scripture.

are you unfamiliar with the Spirit that you'd confuse Him with a demon?

[Avatar4321]

15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

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?

we don't live in the age of grace

we live in the dispensation of the fulness of times when all things will be gathered into one.

and God has, as in every age, spoken from heaven. He has not changed, as you seem to think. He calls men, reveals truths, endows with gifts and powers, and acts upon the world.

can you be one with Jesus when you reject the authority of His Holy Priesthood?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The custom of the era (which it's fine to be horrified by) was that girls married between 12-14. Mary would almost certainly have been of that age as she'd likely already have been married off otherwise. It's also worth noting that life expectancy was short at such times. Death in child birth was common. But there were no shortage of ways to die. Especially if one was poor on the margins of society.  However even Kings typically died by their mid 40's. Life it the ancient world was brutish and short as many historians have noted. We romanticize the past but it wasn't a good time to live.

While it postdates the birth of Christ, Rabbis later codified the legal marriage age as 12 for girls and 13 for boys. This wasn't unique to Palestine but was also the tradition in Rome and Greece. In Jewish custom boys were expected to be married by 16-17 although sometimes they did not until they were 20. There's no good demographic information for breakdowns of marriage age for Jews in Roman occupied Palestine. Typically scholars look at examples or compare it to Egypt or other surrounding regions where better data can be found.

 

Yes, that's a likely scenario. "Almost certainly" sounds like a stronger conclusion than should be made about an individual using only generalized sociological information.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's a likely scenario. "Almost certainly" sounds like a stronger conclusion than should be made about an individual using only generalized sociological information.

If she was out of the social norm I think it'd be commented upon in the texts. That's why I put it like that. 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The custom of the era (which it's fine to be horrified by) was that girls married between 12-14. Mary would almost certainly have been of that age as she'd likely already have been married off otherwise. It's also worth noting that life expectancy was short at such times. Death in child birth was common. But there were no shortage of ways to die. Especially if one was poor on the margins of society.  However even Kings typically died by their mid 40's. Life it the ancient world was brutish and short as many historians have noted. We romanticize the past but it wasn't a good time to live.

While it postdates the birth of Christ, Rabbis later codified the legal marriage age as 12 for girls and 13 for boys. This wasn't unique to Palestine but was also the tradition in Rome and Greece. In Jewish custom boys were expected to be married by 16-17 although sometimes they did not until they were 20. There's no good demographic information for breakdowns of marriage age for Jews in Roman occupied Palestine. Typically scholars look at examples or compare it to Egypt or other surrounding regions where better data can be found.

Part of the reason we marry so much later is simply due to life expectancy. We don't need as many children to survive and because our societies have become so complex we keep extending adolescence. When you need children to work the farms for mere survival many children are important - especially when the majority of your children will die young. That means reproduction is highly valued both from a social perspective but arguably from an evolutionary standard as well. Likewise if you are apt to die before 40, you don't exactly have a lot of life to live. We can push married life to 20's or even 30's simply because of how rich we are and how medicine lets us survive.

The transition really starts in the modern era. By the time of the 19th century the transition was well underway. Despite what some apologists say, marrying younger than 16 was pretty uncommon in the 19th century. Although not unheard of by any means. There's also strong cultural traditions tied to immigration. So in Sweden women married young and men later - sometimes as late as 30. My great grandfather was in his early 20's and my great grandmother was 15. That wasn't uncommon in their region even though it was where they moved to in Canada.

My mother in law was 14 when she was married and that was just 50 years ago.   It wasn't unusual for her part of the world.  My wife was considered to be almost too old to marry at 19.

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

But see even John says he only immerses in water ---it is the immersion by the Spirit that counts.

Who says it is the immersion by the Spirit that counts? Oh, I agree that it does count,  but you are discounting what John was doing, that it does not count. Christ says that they both count and are necessary, being born of the water and the Spirit.

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

There is nothing wrong with various denominations, this is how GOD keeps all of Christendom on it's toes!

Where can I find that in the Bible?

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Most all agree on the important things, it's the fine-tuning that keeps Christians in the word.

Not hardly. Some sects believe that baptism is essential while others do not. There are those who believe in the ordination of women while others do not. Some believe the same sex marriage is okay while some do not.  I am not debating whether any of those are right or wrong, just pointing out that  there is no "unity of faith" among the Christian churches. That is why Christ set some apostles and prophets in the church, and why some men took them out.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

My mother in law was 14 when she was married and that was just 50 years ago.   It wasn't unusual for her part of the world.  My wife was considered to be almost too old to marry at 19.

One of my aunts was fourteen when she married some sixty plus years ago. I had a sister-in-law, now deceased that was married at fourteen many moons ago. (I am not declaring how many.) It was and is not the norm, but it still happens.

Glenn

[Avatar4321]

The claim that he was perpetuating the con to exercise power over others creates questions. Because didn't really seek to control people.

“Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them to do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. ‘How?’ responded the gentleman; ‘to us it is very difficult.’ Mr. Smith replied, ‘I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.’” -: “Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them to do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. ‘How?’ responded the gentleman; ‘to us it is very difficult.’ Mr. Smith replied, ‘I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.’”³ John Taylor

Having people govern themselves as a power grab. Very strange

 

D&C 121 teaches us how Joseph believed we attain power. And its without compulsion. Its by virtue and doing good.

"A brother who works in the St. Louis Gazette office … wanted to know by what principle I got so much power. … I told him I obtained power on the principles of truth and virtue, which would last when I was dead and gone." - Joseph Smith

[Avatar4321]

Found another account that is strange if Joseph was perpetuating a con:

"When Joseph came in [to the Whitmer home], he threw himself down beside me. ‘Father! Mother!’ said he, ‘you do not know how happy I am. The Lord has caused the plates to be shown to three more besides me, who have also seen an angel and will have to testify to the truth of what I have said, for they know for themselves that I do not go about to deceive the people. And I do feel as though I was relieved of a dreadful burden which was almost too much for me to endure. But they will now have to bear a part, and it does rejoice my soul that I am not any longer to be entirely alone in the world.’" 

That was from his mother. So was he trying to con his mother? Was she lying for some reason? Or was this a genuine account?

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nothing at all.

HOWEVER, a belief that one must be a polygamist in order to be a prophet of GOD---isn't that a fabrication? But is that not what Joseph Smith promoted? Yet did not the Bible clearly state that a bishop should be the husband of but one wife? So, both accounts cannot be correct --- so which is of the Lord and which is a distortion? And if there is one distortion can there be more?

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Who says it is the immersion by the Spirit that counts? Oh, I agree that it does count,  but you are discounting what John was doing, that it does not count. Christ says that they both count and are necessary, being born of the water and the Spirit.

Where can I find that in the Bible?

Not hardly. Some sects believe that baptism is essential while others do not. There are those who believe in the ordination of women while others do not. Some believe the same sex marriage is okay while some do not.  I am not debating whether any of those are right or wrong, just pointing out that  there is no "unity of faith" among the Christian churches. That is why Christ set some apostles and prophets in the church, and why some men took them out.

Glenn

Do you realize that the very same "sects" which ordain women also ordained "homosexual priests" and accept "gay" marriage? Doesn't that eliminate those as apostate? Can one honestly not see a difference between Bible believers and social activists???

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Who says it is the immersion by the Spirit that counts? Oh, I agree that it does count,  but you are discounting what John was doing, that it does not count. Christ says that they both count and are necessary, being born of the water and the Spirit.

Where can I find that in the Bible?

Not hardly. Some sects believe that baptism is essential while others do not. There are those who believe in the ordination of women while others do not. Some believe the same sex marriage is okay while some do not.  I am not debating whether any of those are right or wrong, just pointing out that  there is no "unity of faith" among the Christian churches. That is why Christ set some apostles and prophets in the church, and why some men took them out.

Glenn

John did the very same as the sacrifice of animals in the temple? They were illustrations of what JESUS alone would accomplish perfectly. Jesus fulfilled the endless sacrifice of animals and the Holy Spirit fulfilled what water baptism could never accomplish.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If she was out of the social norm I think it'd be commented upon in the texts. That's why I put it like that. 

I don't think any  of the writers of the NT actually knew anything about the circumstances of Jesus' birth. Both nativity stories are invented, and generally even with great historical figures we tend not to know much about their birth/early childhood, especially in the ancient world. Jesus' greatness was largely recognized only after his death.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Gray

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

we don't live in the age of grace

we live in the dispensation of the fulness of times when all things will be gathered into one.

and God has, as in every age, spoken from heaven. He has not changed, as you seem to think. He calls men, reveals truths, endows with gifts and powers, and acts upon the world.

can you be one with Jesus when you reject the authority of His Holy Priesthood?

As a saved believer I'm one of His priests and Christ alone is the authority and the Bible His all sufficient Golden Rule.

[Avatar4321]

3 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

As a saved believer I'm one of His priests and Christ alone is the authority and the Bible His all sufficient Golden Rule.

Who called and ordained you?

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

HOWEVER, a belief that one must be a polygamist in order to be a prophet of GOD---isn't that a fabrication? But is that not what Joseph Smith promoted? Yet did not the Bible clearly state that a bishop should be the husband of but one wife? So, both accounts cannot be correct --- so which is of the Lord and which is a distortion? And if there is one distortion can there be more?

No, the Bible stated that a Bishop should be the husband of at least one wife.  It's a minimum, not a maximum.

And all the prophets that held priesthood key probably were polygamists.  Some we know were.  Some there is no record of their family situation.  Like Christ.  I personally believe he was also a polygamist, being married to Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene, and probably others.

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

and the Bible His all sufficient Golden Rule

You do realize that us Catholics put the Bible together, don't you? So if you believe the Bible is authoritatively from God, then shouldn't you also believe that the Catholic Church has the authority of God?

Why aren't you a Catholic?

[MiserereNobis]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, the Bible stated that a Bishop should be the husband of at least one wife.  It's a minimum, not a maximum.

And all the prophets that held priesthood key probably were polygamists.  Some we know were.  Some there is no record of their family situation.  Like Christ.  I personally believe he was also a polygamist, being married to Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene, and probably others.

Like I appreciate mfbukowski for being an un-orthodox faithful Mormon, I appreciate you for being a traditional Mormon, who doesn't shy away from things that people use to criticize Mormonism, but instead owns them. I think your stance would blunt the criticism that the Mormon church tries to whitewash things. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Do you realize that the very same "sects" which ordain women also ordained "homosexual priests" and accept "gay" marriage? Doesn't that eliminate those as apostate? Can one honestly not see a difference between Bible believers and social activists???

Do all sects that ordain women also allow SSM? There are 40 thousand or so to check out on this? But where in the Bible does it say that women are not to be ordained as bishops, etc? The proponents point to scriptures that could be interpreted as a woman actually be an apostle (Romans 16:7). They are claiming to be guided by the Spirit just like you. But now you seem to be saying that some of them may not be guided by the spirit. Who is the arbitrator here? Who can authoritatively say that they are speaking by the Spirit and those that disagree are apostate?

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

John did the very same as the sacrifice of animals in the temple? They were illustrations of what JESUS alone would accomplish perfectly. Jesus fulfilled the endless sacrifice of animals and the Holy Spirit fulfilled what water baptism could never accomplish.

Agree that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law of sacrifices. But nowhere does Christ even hint that baptism also were to be done away with as He affirmed to Nicodemus. Then we have Peter, an apostle tell those of the multitude who were pricked in their hearts upon his testimony after the Pentecost "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And Paul also affirms baptism. Here again who has the authority to speak for the Holy Spirit when one denomination declares that the Spirit tells them that baptism is essential and people from another denomination says the Spirit tells them that it is not?

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

As a saved believer I'm one of His priests and Christ alone is the authority and the Bible His all sufficient Golden Rule.

I don't remember reading that in the Bible. When it comes to calling priests the Bible says that no one takes that honor unto himself. One such must be called of God as was Aaron. Moses was that mouthpiece of God that brought that word to Aaron. Christ left His apostles and prophets on the earth to carry out the work that He had started. Man, not God took those apostles and prophets off the earth.

And Joseph was not a con man.

Glenn

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Who called and ordained you?

The Holy Spirit. Who called and ordained you?

[Atheist Mormon]

On 11/10/2017 at 4:37 PM, Avatar4321 said:

thinking about the discussion we were having in another thread and I thought it might be good to focus directly on the claim by critics of the Church that Joseph was obviously a con man and use that as a reason to not consider the Book of Mormon or anything of the teachings of the Restored Gospel.

my own studies have convinced me that Joseph sincerely held the beliefs he taught. What reasons have you seen to believe he was a con man? What exactly was the objective of the con? It wasn't money. Joseph received a revelation early on that he wouldn't be blessed materially, which is an odd revelation for a con man to receive.

if you believe Joseph was sincere, what stories or experiences do you see that demonstrate his sincerity?

I was thinking of using what I learn here to elsewhere to share the gospel.

I know fundamentalist Christians will hate reading this but Joseph was as sincere as Jesus. Like Jesus he was almost certain to get killed, and both of them did not want to die.