Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It does say that and I suspect it is wrong. I don’t blame John Taylor for writing it though. He was probably pretty emotionally wrought after watching the prophet and his brother get murdered in front of him and I doubt he thought his written declaration about the event would end up being canonized. Then again, he might be right and depending on how you interpret the ‘done more for the salvation’ bit I can even see one reading where I would agree with him but meh, not a big deal.

Consider how many millions of God's children have received baptism and endowments through what Joseph restored and the priesthood keys he received.
I don't know of anyone other than the Savior who can lay claim to providing salvation to more of God's children.

Link to post
53 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

It has been years since I've delved into this topic.  Not sure I knew that Levi Hancock preformed the marriage.  Did Oliver know that Fanny and Joseph had been married at the time when he referred to the "filthy affair?"  Or was he out of Joseph's circle at that time?

Information is scarce about all of this.  Oliver was certainly aware of the doctrine of plural marriage, but what and when he knew the details of Fanny Alger, I cannot say for certain.  The Fanny Alger marriage was in 1835 or early 1836.  In 1837. Cowdery lost nearly everything in the collapse of the Kirtland Bank and began to be very bitter.  He started his own business and stopped contributing funds to the Church and accused leaders of mismanaging funds.  Things got rough for him in Missouri and some didn't treat him too well.  It was sometime after this that he started spreading rumors of Joseph Smith committing adultery.  He was pretty angry over how things were going.  In Jan of 1838 he wrote a letter to his brother where he made the infamous statement about the "affair".  He was excommunicated in April 1838.  In 1842 it appeared he was ready to come back to the Church in Nauvoo.  Joseph instructed the High Council to admit him back into fellowship.  I'm not sure what happened, but he did not come back at this time.  He wrote a letter to Joseph Smith while he was in Carthage Jail in June of 1844.  He petitioned for readmittance in 1847 and was rebaptized at that time.  He had plans to join the Saints in Utah, but his health was poor and he died in 1850 before he could go to Utah.  He died a faithful member and reconfirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Is no consideration given to the fact that at this point in time Joseph was under extreme duress, his enemies hounding him like bloodthirsty jackals? He knew he was very likely going to soon die a martyr’s death (he was killed one month later) and he was being understandably defiant in the face of his hate filled enemies who would soon murder him and his brother Hyrum. Under these circumstances, I can cut the prophet some slack.

And is it not of tremendous significance that as the prophet was about to die at the hands of the mob he requested John Taylor sing that most humbling of all hymns, ‘A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,”’ over and over again? It’s always best to see things in balance rather than succumb to the temptation to analyze things out of balance because of a personal agenda driven by confirmation bias..

Through faith in Christ, I personally try to do draw nearer to God by striving to be more and more like him each day, yet I have those moments when, if taken in isolation, it would appear to the uncharitable I’m a wicked man.

I have to admit I've thought things like the comparison of suffering with my mother or those that are probably tortured far worse than Christ was and I feel guilty because Christ was supposed to have suffered the ultimate sacrifice.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Consider how many millions of God's children have received baptism and endowments through what Joseph restored and the priesthood keys he received.
I don't know of anyone other than the Savior who can lay claim to providing salvation to more of God's children.

Consider how many billions of souls received bodies because of Adam and Eve.

Consider how many billions of souls have been led to faith in Christ through Peter and the Catholic church.

The real point though, is that it's pretty fruitless and a bit comedic to make claims about who is or who is not the most accomplished in God's work. I don't think God operates like that and I'm pretty certain God wouldn't be a fan of people seeking the glory for themselves.

  • Like 2
Link to post
12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The real point though, is that it's pretty fruitless and a bit comedic to make claims about who is or who is not the most accomplished in God's work. I don't think God operates like that and I'm pretty certain God wouldn't be a fan of people seeking the glory for themselves.

Yup. It reminds me of someone else.

Link to post

What does it mean to "need" to believe something? From the OP, it sounds kind of like a psychological need to rationalize something one thinks is wrong because the consequence of accepting it's wrong might conflict with cherished beliefs. Seems like a terrible reason to rationalize. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Is no consideration given to the fact that at this point in time Joseph was under extreme duress, his enemies hounding him like bloodthirsty jackals? He knew he was very likely going to soon die a martyr’s death (he was killed one month later) and he was being understandably defiant in the face of his hate filled enemies who would soon murder him and his brother Hyrum. Under these circumstances, I can cut the prophet some slack.

And is it not of tremendous significance that as the prophet was about to die at the hands of the mob he requested John Taylor sing that most humbling of all hymns, ‘A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,”’ over and over again? It’s always best to see things in balance rather than succumb to the temptation to analyze things out of balance because of a personal agenda driven by confirmation bias..

Through faith in Christ, I personally try to do draw nearer to God by striving to be more and more like him each day, yet I have those moments when, if taken in isolation, it would appear to the uncharitable I’m a wicked man.

This is the kind of "empiricism" I have discussed with you recently that takes into account the full range of what it is to be human.

It could easily be said Joseph was "wicked" empirically, yet with taking account of the full picture, one can see two sides at once.

Because it is often so hard to know "both sides", I tend to ignore alleged historicity and take works like the BOM on faith and testimony alone, and that is why I do that. 

A wicked man could not have written the BOM. 

And so as a full skeptic I can accept it intellectually without even needing to consider whether Joseph's personal human foibles colored the Doctrine or if the book is historical or not

I know that the Doctrines create a new version of Christianity that not only revolutionary but perfectly designed for these humanistic times, and the Lord has confirmed that to me again and again

And that is why I subscribe to the philosophy of Radical Empiricism, which takes into account the human element as you have above.

 I have never criticized the church or the BOM!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism#:~:text=Radical empiricism is a philosophical,a place in our explanations.

 

"Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.[1]"

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Doesn't the D&C say that besides Jesus, Joseph Smith has done more for the salvation of man?  Even when I was a believer I thought that was a bit over-the-top.

John Taylor said that, and it was canonized in D&C 135:3.  It is clear from Scripture that the Holy Spirit is the Second Comforter, and Elder Taylor's statement is to be taken as hyperbole in any case.

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Joseph's quote is boastful about him doing more doesn't sit too well:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it.   I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” —Joseph Smith, May 26, 1844, History of the Church, vol 6, pp. 408-409

Actually,  non-Mormon scholars such as Harold Bloom, and the non-Mormon political figure Josiah Quincy made such statements about him.  He was obviously a very beloved and charismatic figure, Tacenda.  A great many people underestimated him and hated him in his own time, and killing him only made him stronger.  How could that have happened?

Quote

I myself can think of not another American, except for Emerson and Whitman, who so moves and alters my own imagination.  So self-educated was he that he transcends Emerson and Whitman in my imaginative response, and takes his place with the great figures of our fiction, since at moments he appears larger than life, in the mode of a Shakespearean character.  So rich and so varied a personality, so vital a spark of divinity, is almost beyond the limits of the human, as we normally construe those limits.  Bloom (Yale Univ), American Religion (1992), 127.

For, in addition to founding “the most radical or revolutionary of all the American enterprises aiming toward building the Church on earth [the Kingdom of God on Earth] to correspond to the exact specifications disclosed in the divine revelation,”[1] he also sought to begin the final gathering of ancient Israel & Judah,[2] and to restore all things – including the ancient theology and sacred rites of passage for all of humankind, past, present, and future.  As Joseph Smith himself said on May 12, 1844, specifically placing himself as a key element in fulfillment of Daniel 2:31-45:  

Quote

 I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.  Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:365.

[1] Samuel S. Hill, Jr., “A Typology of American Restitutionism: From Frontier Revivalism and Mormonism to the Jesus Movement,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44/1 (Mar 1, 1976):69,

[2] Note the October 24, 1841, dedication of the Holy Land for the final Gathering of Israel, by LDS Apostle Orson Hyde, in Jerusalem, on Mt. Olivet (Times & Seasons, III/11 [April 1, 1842]:739-742).  Cf. Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement, WUNT 204 (2005/2006).

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nope.  Jesus is the First Comforter (I Jn 2:1).  In other words, Jesus is the "first counselor," and the Holy Spirit is the "second counselor."   How do we know this?  Jesus himself tells us:

In John 14:16, for example, the "Second Comforter" is the Holy Ghost, who is often called the “Paraclete” in non-Mormon circles.  The phrase in Greek ('allon parakleton) is translated in various ways, and it can be confusing:  In John 14:16 Jesus says "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter" (KJV); "Segond Consolateur" (German Luther Bible revised); "another Counselor" (RSV, NIV); "another Advocate" (JB, NRSV, SV); "another Helper" (TEV); "another to be your Advocate" (NEB, REB); "another Paraclete" (NAB, see note: "Jesus is the first Paraclete" in I John 2:1).  But what is a paraclete?

Job 33:23 has Hebrew meli  “interpreter, mediator, helper” (in parallel there with “angel, messenger”) translated in the Aramaic targum as paraqlytaʼ, a Greek loanword familiar to us in New Testament Greek parakletos “advocate, intercessor, counselor, comforter, supporter, sponsor; Doppelgänger, alter ego, successor” (only in Johannine texts).[1]


[1] John Ashton, “Paraclete,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, V:152-153.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  Jesus is the First Comforter (I Jn 2:1).  In other words, Jesus is the "first counselor," and the Holy Spirit is the "second counselor."   How do we know this?  Jesus himself tells us:

In John 14:16, for example, the "Second Comforter" is the Holy Ghost, who is often called the “Paraclete” in non-Mormon circles.  The phrase in Greek ('allon parakleton) is translated in various ways, and it can be confusing:  In John 14:16 Jesus says "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter" (KJV); "Segond Consolateur" (German Luther Bible revised); "another Counselor" (RSV, NIV); "another Advocate" (JB, NRSV, SV); "another Helper" (TEV); "another to be your Advocate" (NEB, REB); "another Paraclete" (NAB, see note: "Jesus is the first Paraclete" in I John 2:1).  But what is a paraclete?

Job 33:23 has Hebrew meli  “interpreter, mediator, helper” (in parallel there with “angel, messenger”) translated in the Aramaic targum as paraqlytaʼ, a Greek loanword familiar to us in New Testament Greek parakletos “advocate, intercessor, counselor, comforter, supporter, sponsor; Doppelgänger, alter ego, successor” (only in Johannine texts).[1]


[1] John Ashton, “Paraclete,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, V:152-153.

Not according to the Church or the prophet Joseph.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

He's receiving his inheritance, the kingdom purchased with his blood.

  • "Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family." - Joseph Smith

Adam receives all the dispensations of this earth from their dispensation heads.  He holds the keys of the universe and presides over this creation.
He then bestows this inheritance on Christ.
And we hope to become joint heirs.

  • "What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children." - Joseph Smith

That's what is happening with the Ancient of Days at Adam-Ondi-Ahman.

Incorrect - - - Elder Mark E Petersen said this in 1980 - - -

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1980/11/adam-the-archangel?lang=eng

"Adam held the keys of the First Presidency and stood directly after the Savior in authority (see Teachings, p. 168). He received those keys in the Creation, according to the Prophet Joseph Smith, who added, “Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next” (Teachings, pp. 157–58).

"Indeed, Adam was very special and very important. Before coming into mortality, he was known as Michael. The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly identifies both Adam and Michael as one and the same person, an angel, the chief angel, or archangel, of heaven, the special servant of God and Christ.

"Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, dated March 28, 1835, identifies him as an angel as of that date—little more than a hundred years ago—and calls him “Michael, the prince, the archangel” (D&C 107:54).

"Then can anyone honestly mistake the identity of Adam, or Michael? Even after the thousand years of the Millennium are over he will still retain his status as an angel—the archangel—and a resurrected man.

"In the year 1842 the Prophet Joseph Smith spoke of Michael, or Adam, who visited him. Joseph identified him as an angel even then—the archangel—and said, “The voice of Michael, the archangel; … and of diverse [other] angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time” (D&C 128:21). He thus listed Michael, or Adam, with the other angels.

"So, in 1842 Michael, or Adam, was still an angel and will continue to be so through the final winding up scene of this earth.

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel.

Then what is his relationship to the Savior and to God our Father?

Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, the first born to our Heavenly Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten in the flesh.

Jesus is the Holy One of Israel, not Adam, not anyone else. Although we are all spirit children of the Father, Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father, in mortality, even from the beginning, not Adam, not anyone else (see Moses 5:9). This the Lord himself says.

In the day that the gospel was given to Adam, the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and the divine voice of Jesus Christ—the Jehovah of that time—said to him by the power of the Holy Ghost: “I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the Beginning” (Moses 5:9).

Then, can anyone claim that distinction for Adam, or for anyone else? Of course not! Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father, even from the very beginning.

"And who was thus given of the Father to be crucified? Who wrought out the atonement on Calvary? Jesus of Nazareth! He was the Only Begotten of God. He alone was the Sacrificial Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. Adam was the Savior’s progenitor only in the same sense in which he is the ancestor of us all.

God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

"Then how could it be said by anyone that he had “an only begotten” son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh.

"Then who is Adam? He is Michael the archangel, appointed by God and Christ to be the mortal progenitor of the race. At this very moment, in the year 1980, he is still in his position as the archangel whose trumpet in the final days will herald the resurrection and who will be the captain of the Lord’s hosts in the final defeat of Lucifer.

He is the “Ancient of Days” spoken of by Daniel the prophet and as such will meet the faithful in that same valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, which is named after him (see Dan. 7:9–22; D&C 116).

At the close of this dispensation he will there deliver up his stewardship to Christ, his Master and his Savior, the Lord Jehovah, who in turn will give his accounting to the Heavenly and Eternal Father of us all (see Teachings, pp. 122, 157, 167–68, 237).

If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

Incorrect - - - Elder Mark E Petersen said this in 1980 - - -

Yes, Elder Petersen was a strong opponent of Adam God.  He's entitled to that belief.  He apparently coined the term Mormon fundamentalist.

He also specifically taught that the negro would all be servants in the next life.  So you'll pardon me if I don't accept his doctrinal authority.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  Jesus is the First Comforter (I Jn 2:1).  In other words, Jesus is the "first counselor," and the Holy Spirit is the "second counselor."   How do we know this?  Jesus himself tells us:

In John 14:16, for example, the "Second Comforter" is the Holy Ghost, who is often called the “Paraclete” in non-Mormon circles.  The phrase in Greek ('allon parakleton) is translated in various ways, and it can be confusing:  In John 14:16 Jesus says "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter" (KJV); "Segond Consolateur" (German Luther Bible revised); "another Counselor" (RSV, NIV); "another Advocate" (JB, NRSV, SV); "another Helper" (TEV); "another to be your Advocate" (NEB, REB); "another Paraclete" (NAB, see note: "Jesus is the first Paraclete" in I John 2:1).  But what is a paraclete?

Job 33:23 has Hebrew meli  “interpreter, mediator, helper” (in parallel there with “angel, messenger”) translated in the Aramaic targum as paraqlytaʼ, a Greek loanword familiar to us in New Testament Greek parakletos “advocate, intercessor, counselor, comforter, supporter, sponsor; Doppelgänger, alter ego, successor” (only in Johannine texts).[1]


[1] John Ashton, “Paraclete,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, V:152-153.

Thanks!

I had never seen it that way !

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 3/30/2021 at 7:09 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Notwithstanding my maleness, I don’t see the appeal of collecting wives and children as a power or status symbol, so I’ll have to take your word for it. 
 

As for sexual lust, enough men have engaged in and gotten away with it in secret through the ages that I don’t know that societal disapprobation is necessarily a deterrent. 

Why is there no social disapprobation of folks like Wilt Chamberlain, JFK, Gene Simmons, Hugh Hefner, MLK, et al.? Why is taking multiple wives contemptible but  having hundreds or even thousands of assignations is not only ok, but admirable? 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 3/29/2021 at 2:41 PM, Risingtide said:

I feel that I need to believe that what Joseph Smith taught and practiced regarding polygamy was inspired by God. Even though we no longer are required to live it, I still feel bound to believe God directed Joseph Smith in introducing it into the theology and practices of the Church. The alternatives as I think about it are:

1.God gave JS a very vague idea that it was to be practiced and Joseph himself filled in the details. In this I would find some fault in God's management of a practice that had such monumental consequences for Joseph and the restored church. 

2. Joseph Smith went rogue, maybe confusing his thoughts and desires with heavenly inspiration. 

I'm very open to other ideas I have yet to fully consider.

I believe Brigham Young and others followed and taught what Joseph taught.

What do you think of Jacob 3?

“27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

What do you think a righteous plural marriage system, one that was pleasing to God if he commanded it to raise seed to himself, would look like?

Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

.............. Elder Mark E Petersen said this in 1980 - - -

.......................“Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next” (Teachings, pp. 157–58).

"Indeed, Adam was very special and very important. Before coming into mortality, he was known as Michael. The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly identifies both Adam and Michael as one and the same person, an angel, the chief angel, or archangel, of heaven, the special servant of God and Christ.

"Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, dated March 28, 1835, identifies him as an angel as of that date—little more than a hundred years ago—and calls him “Michael, the prince, the archangel” (D&C 107:54).

"Then can anyone honestly mistake the identity of Adam, or Michael? Even after the thousand years of the Millennium are over he will still retain his status as an angel—the archangel—and a resurrected man.

"In the year 1842 the Prophet Joseph Smith spoke of Michael, or Adam, who visited him. Joseph identified him as an angel even then—the archangel—and said, “The voice of Michael, the archangel; … and of diverse [other] angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time” (D&C 128:21). He thus listed Michael, or Adam, with the other angels.

"So, in 1842 Michael, or Adam, was still an angel and will continue to be so through the final winding up scene of this earth.

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel.

Then what is his relationship to the Savior and to God our Father?

Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, the first born to our Heavenly Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten in the flesh......................

......................Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father, even from the very beginning.

...............................

God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

"Then how could it be said by anyone that he had “an only begotten” son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

........................................

"Then who is Adam? He is Michael the archangel, appointed by God and Christ to be the mortal progenitor of the race. At this very moment, in the year 1980, he is still in his position as the archangel whose trumpet in the final days will herald the resurrection and who will be the captain of the Lord’s hosts in the final defeat of Lucifer.

He is the “Ancient of Days” spoken of by Daniel the prophet ..................................

O.K. Then who is the biological father of Adam?  God was father of his spirit (Michael), but who begat him in the flesh?  According to Brigham Young, both Adam and Eve were begotten elsewhere (another planet) and brought to the Garden of Eden.  So, who were their biological father(s) and mother(s)?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Consider how many millions of God's children have received baptism and endowments through what Joseph restored and the priesthood keys he received.
I don't know of anyone other than the Savior who can lay claim to providing salvation to more of God's children.

As I said, the Holy Spirit has certainly done more than anyone, except the Savior.  Or, maybe the measure is being applied to embodied persons only.  So, one has to ask:  When will the Holy Spirit become embodied?  Last one to leave, turn out the lights?

Link to post
On 4/2/2021 at 1:11 PM, JLHPROF said:

In 1835, even though the Melchizedek priesthood had been restored, the Church was operating very much on an Aaronic level.  The entire focus of the Church at that time was Aaronic.  As you say, no concept of eternal marriage.
It was even the study of the Old Testament that led Joseph to inquire about polygamy.

So I think it's safe to say when Joseph first attempted a polygamous relationship it was very much in the vein of ancient world polygamy - like David, Solomon, and the Law of Moses.  No concept of sealing keys or eternal marriage were necessary at that time.  According to the not always reliable Benjamin Johnson the marriage was performed by Fanny's father, Samuel Alger.  Either Benjamin outright lied about him performing the marriage or it was viewed as a marriage.

And the article on marriage (old D&C 101) was written and published by Oliver Cowdery and was based not on revelation but Church policy.  It has no reference to anything God ever said in revelation and was rightfully removed.

That  is a pretty convenient walk around the bushes in a way to paint things in a way to fit your narrative.

 

So what if Cowdery wrote the article?  It was published as part of the 1835 D&C and accepted by the church.  That makes in canon.  As for the MP was a later addition with a back pedal to include as an older revelation. Very typical of who the Church developed.

Link to post
On 4/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, T-Shirt said:

While information about polygamy in the early 1830's is scant, there is evidence of the things you claim to have none.  Orson Pratt, Joseph B Noble and WW Phelps all speak of Joseph telling them of plural marriage in 1831 and 1832.  In addition, according to one source, Levi Hancock performed the marriage between Joseph and Fanny Alger.  Eliza Snow also said that Fanny Alger was married to Joseph.

Ah yes thanks for the reminder about Levi Hancock. You are correct.  And yea I recall something  about early in the game the Pratts and others were going to Missouri not only to convert the "Lamamnites" but to find "Lamanite" wives.  How nice. So they lied through their teeth about this for more than 16 years.  Doesn't build much trust for me that the man claiming to speak for God really was.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 4/2/2021 at 1:14 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, if I had to pick one person who has done more than any other to the benefit of mankind I'd probably choose Adam, but that's just me.

Really? I get that he was under stress, but that doesn't justify him making statements about doing more for mankind than any other person, or even that he's been able to keep a church together where Paul, John, Peter or even JESUS were unable. Again...really? That is extreme arrogance. Some say that pressure brings out the true nature of an individual and reveals their character, whether that be courage, kindness, or...arrogance. 

Even if it was true (which I don't believe it is) saying such things borders on sacrilegious. Joseph isn't justified simply because he was in a very tough spot.  

Joseph Smith was the classic narcissist.  Plain and simple.

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, Elder Petersen was a strong opponent of Adam God.  He's entitled to that belief.  He apparently coined the term Mormon fundamentalist.

He also specifically taught that the negro would all be servants in the next life.  So you'll pardon me if I don't accept his doctrinal authority.

Why do you feel the need to slander him?  Are you associating him with polygamous sects in southern Utah?  So he was a little more immersed in the racist culture of the day (as was Brigham Young).  You should respond point by point to his powerful recitation of facts.  Why would you reject some of the words of Joseph Smith?

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

O.K. Then who is the biological father of Adam?  God was father of his spirit (Michael), but who begat him in the flesh?  According to Brigham Young, both Adam and Eve were begotten elsewhere (another planet) and brought to the Garden of Eden.  So, who were their biological father(s) and mother(s)?

It cannot be that Adam (Michael) was begotten physically of God the Father.  A contradiction because it should be clear that Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father.  I accept literally the teaching in the Temple that God the Father and Jesus went down to earth to form Adam's body.  Eve's body was formed later.  Read the scripture in my signature box below.  God is perfectly capable of commanding the dust to come together to form physical bodies (without having to use the birthing process).

BY said a number of things that were inexplicable.  You probably are aware that a group of BYU scholars (perhaps you were with them?) made an intense study of all his words on the subject.  At the end, - - -

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory#cite_note-14

Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.   [14]   Stephen E. Robinson, "The Exclusion by Misrepresentation".


Matthew Brown gave perhaps one of the best reconcilations of Adam-God at the 2009 FairMormon Conference:

On the 9th of April 1852 President Brigham Young stepped up to the pulpit in the old tabernacle on Temple Square and informed a group of Elders, who had gathered there for General Conference, that he was going to straighten them out on an issue which they had been debating about. The topic of disagreement centered upon who was the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh—Elohim or the Holy Ghost. President Young surprised the people who were in attendance by announcing that it was neither one of them....Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years. His viewpoints have been variously classified as doctrine, theory, paradox, heresy, speculation, and some of the mysteries.  [15]   Matthew B. Brown, "Brigham Young’s Teachings on Adam," 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009).

Link to post
15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, Elder Petersen was a strong opponent of Adam God.  He's entitled to that belief.  He apparently coined the term Mormon fundamentalist.

He also specifically taught that the negro would all be servants in the next life.  So you'll pardon me if I don't accept his doctrinal authority.

Ahhh so you pick and choose as well. Such a messy pot of clay with all sorts of conflicting ideas to pick from.  So nice to know "prophets" teach us what God wants us to know.  oh..wait...not so much.

Link to post
23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Joseph Smith was the classic narcissist.  Plain and simple.

And so was Napoleon.

Does't matter one bit relevant to what they accomplished.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, longview said:

Why do you feel the need to slander him?  Are you associating him with polygamous sects in southern Utah?  So he was a little more immersed in the racist culture of the day (as was Brigham Young).  You should respond point by point to his powerful recitation of facts.  Why would you reject some of the words of Joseph Smith?

Not slandering anyone.  Just pointing out that he was just as capable of being as wrong on Adam as he was on the negro.

And I don't reject anything Joseph taught, although I do recognize that Kirtland era Joseph operated with less understanding than Nauvoo era Joseph.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...