Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"

[Jarrod]

That's not what we're talking about and you know it. We are not all called to be prophets, we do not all claim to have divine communion with God for the benefit of the whole human family, and we do not all have the authority to speak for God as the official leader and mouthpiece of God's church.

We're not?

Acts 2

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

If you got the Ghost you got the gift.

Yes we don't have the "keys" but thats completely different.

No, we are not all the one prophet called by God to lead the church. Duh.

Please stop intentionally trying to distract everyone from the real ideas and issues being discussed here, even if your only motivation is to have fun with your mixed contexts. You are beginning to fit the description of a troll.

[Zakuska]

<TRIP TRAP TRIPPP TRAPPP Get off a my Bridge!>

Thanks for the compliment!

We are a nation of Prophets. Who has one prophet with "keys" at its head on the earth, Guided by the one true prophet with an ever lasting preisthood in heaven.

Lets read some scriptures and learn a thing or two.

1 Pet. 2: 9

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Can we not have divine communion for our calling... does that not benefit those of the human family in our neck of the vinyard?

Rev. 2: 7

7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev. 2: 11

11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Rev. 2: 17

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Rev. 2: 26

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Rev. 3: 5

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Rev. 3: 12

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Rev. 3: 21

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev. 11: 7

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Rev. 13: 7

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev. 17: 14

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Rev. 21: 7

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

I can see your point about the "one" prophet or mouth piece.

[Guest Lori]

Hi,

joseph Smith Jr. was human & do doubt made mistakes. If he was a fallen prophet that would only show he was a human being. Bible prophets were human to.

Sincerely,

Dale

So if Prophets are just human and make mistakes just like we do then why would anybody trust one who tells them to have sex with them because God told him? If we go with our feelings of polygamy it feels so evil and sinful that it's interesting how people try to justify the obvious sins the prophets committed.

Yet if you look at all the commandments and as a married couple all the things we do to keep our marriages pure and sacred, we avoid anything that would ever lead our partner to commit adultery. I look at all the wonderful qualities of Mormon marriages and the promises we make with eachother. We avoid situations with the opposite sex, pornography, sensual movies, immodesty, lustful thoughts, anything that would cause one of us to break our promises. Look at most of the commandments and you see how if you commit adultery, you are breaking a whole ton of them. Yet a prophet comes along and says God commanded it and all of that is done away with.

So suddenly......

coveting your neighbors wife-gone.

Committing adultery-gone

Breaking your wedding vows-which is breaking the law-gone

Love your neighbor as yourself-gone

Honesty, integrity-gone

Bearing false witness against thy neighbor (if they oppose your sinful polygamy)-gone

I am disappointed that some of you are forgetting about all the commandments Joseph and others had to commit by practicing one. DOESN"T THAT MATTER?

Not to mention the neglect and inability to care for and raise this family that you have now created. Do I need to read the Proclamation on the Family?

What is Royal Blood? How about raising your children by the Holy scriptures and to emulate Christ.

That should be more important than what bloodline you are.

I am trying to see if it's possible that D & C 132 is not revelation from God but from Satan. Look at all the other revelations that are changed and hidden in our church from our prophets? We have no problem excusing those as just speaking as man so why the need to defend something so immoral as polygamy?

[Guest Lori]

You're so close Lori--but you're trying too hard. You're missing the most obvious answer that's staring you right in the face.

Remember Lori: it's not the end of the world if the church isn't what they say it is. You don't have to stop believing in God if Joseph wasn't a prophet. So many people in the church are afraid to even consider the possibility that it's false because they think giving up Mormonism would be giving up God. It doesn't have to be.

Follow the clues. Look at the evidence. Don't be afraid of the truth.

Just wondering if your "my Little Pony" picture is representing the horse from the Book of Mormon?

[Zakuska]

If we go with our feelings of polygamy it feels so evil and sinful that it's interesting how people try to justify the obvious sins the prophets committed.

Are you calling God a sinner?

David... I gave thy thy masters wives (2 sam 12) In nothing did you sin...

Yet a prophet comes along and says God commanded it and all of that is done away with.

He didn't say God commanded it. It was OT law given by God.

Is it sinful for a couple to seek alternate means of conception? Test tubes... serogates?

[Guest Lori]

Is it sinful for a couple to seek alternate means of conception? Test tubes... serogates?

Not unless you are breaking commandments to do it.

[Guest Lori]

David... I gave thy thy masters wives (2 sam 12) In nothing did you sin...

He didn't say God commanded it. It was OT law given by God.

I can't find the law to practice polygamy in the Old Testmament. I do find it in the D& C 132 but nowhere in the Bible. You are really stretching it to claim that "multiply and replenish the earth" is a law for polygamy.

As for David having his Masters wives, was he breaking all those commandments I mentioned by practicing polygamy? If so then how is anybody supposed to know what is righteous and good? It also says in Jacob that David having many wives and concubines was an abomination.

[Zakuska]

Royal Blood is the literal Blood of Israel. Its mentioned in passing here.

Abr. 1: 20

20 Behold, Potiphar

[Zakuska]

David... I gave thy thy masters wives (2 sam 12) In nothing did you sin...

He didn't say God commanded it.

[Zakuska]

Is it sinful for a couple to seek alternate means of conception?  Test tubes...  serogates?

Not unless you are breaking commandments to do it.

My wife and I after seven years of trying went to fertility treatment. I had to give a sample to get checked out. So was I sinning in giving a sample?

[Zakuska]

We have no problem excusing those as just speaking as man so why the need to defend something so immoral as polygamy?

Again... whose the Judge of morality? God says there is even a time to Kill. Thats about as Immoral as it gets.

[Zakuska]

I can't find the law to practice polygamy in the Old Testmament. I do find it in the D& C 132 but nowhere in the Bible. You are really stretching it to claim that "multiply and replenish the earth" is a law for polygamy.

Perhaps you missed Pauls disertation on the subject?

Gal 4

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

A good discorse on the subject:

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/Gal7A.htm

[Kemara]

We have no problem excusing those as just speaking as man so why the need to defend something so immoral as polygamy?

Polygamy itself is not immoral, it may be contrary to your limited, oh so superior and biased mores, but being in oppostion to your personal feelings hardly makes it immoral. Your broad sweeping all encompassing accucastions of immorality bespeaks your intolerance of anything, anyone and any culture that does not fit nicely into your neat little world. Many peoples/cultures, not just LDS, have practiced plural marriage as an honorable, sacred, necessary and integral part of their lives.

[katherine the great]

I can't find the law to practice polygamy in the Old Testmament.

That's because it isn't there. God worked with cultural practices which were already in place, such as slavery. Certainly not condoning them, but putting restrictions on them to protect the "victims" of unfair practices. Levirate marriage(which was NOT the same as the Sarah/Hagar situation) was a way to protect women from the unfair cultural practice of withholding a woman's inheritance in the absence of a son. Most Levirate wives didn't even live with the husband after the son was born because they would have the estate--although they certainly could if they chose to. In fact, even that wasn't techically a law. A man was expected to marry the sonless widow of his close relative, but he didn't have to. She just got to bop him on the head with a shoe or some such thing if he refused, and then she moved on to the next kin. (It's recorded in some detail in the story of Ruth and Boaz.) It was frowned upon, but the law didn't punish him if he refused.

[Zakuska]

It was frowned upon, but the law didn't punish him if he refused.

Im sure the Lord and Onan would disagree with you.

Gen 38

7 And Er, Judah

[katherine the great]

It was frowned upon, but the law didn't punish him if he refused.

Im sure the Lord and Onan would disagree with you.

Gen 38

7 And Er, Judah

[Zakuska]

Yes and from what I understand she prostituted herself with Judah, The Father inlaw. How moral is that?

Regardless it was the Law. Given By God through Noah, Do you disagree with Paul that it was infact Law? Huny bun?

[katherine the great]

Yes and from what I understand she prostituted herself with Judah, The Father inlaw. How moral is that?

Regardless it was the Law. Given By God through Noah, Do you disagree with Paul?

You sound like a broken record. Judah deserved what he got.

[Zakuska]

But we are not talking about Judah. We are talking about what Law it was that Sarah/Hagar/Abraham complied with which you said was not recorded in the Bible.

Paul Indicates that it was.

"Whole Pictrure" Indeed.

[katherine the great]

But we are not talking about Judah. We are talking about what Law it was that Sarah/Hagar/Abraham complied with which you said was not recorded in the Bible.

Paul Indicates that it was.

"Whole Pictrure" Indeed.

You are unbelievable. Paul's words are as much about polygamy as the parable of the ten virgins is about the Lord marrying ten women on the same night. I'm done with you on this topic because your interpretations are so completely illogical. You are WAY out in left field.

[Zakuska]

Im glad to know you think the scriptures are illogical. You better come into the infield from out their behind 1st base.

The bondwomans child was by Law, The free womans Child was by promise.

Paul contrasts the two convenants with the story.

This is exactly what D&C132 says.

Why did Sarah do it? Because it was the Law.

And who Gave Noah that Law? GOD

[joy]

Can you point out anyone making an actual argument (as opposed to someone who simply asserts it) that there were more women then men and that this necessitated polygamy? I haven't heard that from anyone who claims to be an apologist, certainly not from FAIR or FARMS, but only (cluessless, IMHO) members.

The whole idea was debunked by JOhn Widtsoe 100 years ago.

Yes, quietly debunked. Missionaries today and missionaries in my day all touted the "Poor widowed sister for whom there was not a man available" line as to why polygamy existed.

These clueless members that apologists/ defenders of the faith refer to, are those who fill the very chapels today. They are our current missionary force as well.

Has spending time on these internet forums caused some individuals to forget what the rank and file believe and espouse as truth?

The debate and conversation and beliefs that are shared here by believing lds forum members are in no way typical of the beliefs of humble ward members. No, I don't have a study to back this assertion up.

I'm late to this discussion, but wanted to point out that this is exactly what my daughter and I were told last Fall, by the Sister Missionary conducting our tour of Brigham Young's house. (just so that you know at least some Missionaries are currently 'teaching' this concept to non-Members) Seems rather irresponsible and deceitful that any Missionary giving tours of B. Young's house would not be instructed to tell the truth. But of course, I doubt that she knows the truth herself. Which is even more irresponsible and deceitful, don't ya think? Okay, maybe deceitful is too strong of a word. How about self-serving? Is there a little edge to my tone when speaking of the LDS church these days? Yes, I suppose there is. I learned more than I bargained for at Institute, and for that I am eternally grateful.

[Zakuska]

I wouldnt call it deceitful or self-serving. Its a tour. For heavens sake.

When people Tour Thomas Jerfersons house do the Tour guides get into all the nitty gritty details of his escapades with the Maids?

I wonder if they have added Monica Lewinskies name on a plaque outside the oval office?

You have to remember that some of the women where married to BY because they where widowed.

A 15 minute tour is entirely the wrong forum for this.

[Zakuska]

Booo Hooo Katherine is giving me the silent treatment.

In my best Stalone voice... <Kath-a-rine!!!>

[Guest Lori]

We have no problem excusing those as just speaking as man so why the need to defend something so immoral as polygamy?

Polygamy itself is not immoral, it may be contrary to your limited, oh so superior and biased mores, but being in oppostion to your personal feelings hardly makes it immoral. Your broad sweeping all encompassing accucastions of immorality bespeaks your intolerance of anything, anyone and any culture that does not fit nicely into your neat little world. Many peoples/cultures, not just LDS, have practiced plural marriage as an honorable, sacred, necessary and integral part of their lives.

So you are telling me that even though my heart and spirit feel that sex with multiple partners is sickening and immoral that I am just intolerant? Well I guess you would support homosexual sex, killing family members for losing their virginity, mutalating girls bodies, and all the other horrific CULTURAL sins that are practiced throughout the world. (gays are not horrific just to clarify) Just because many cultures practice polygamy doesn't make it moral or sacred. Especially the way Joseph Smith practiced it: Deceipt, lies, and sneaking around behind his wife's back. What happened to those good old wedding vows? Sarah GAVE Hagar to Abraham because she was barren. That makes quite a difference than saying God has given you all these women so therefore the wife refusing exempts you from the law of Sarah.

My "neat little world" is based on the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's the narrow path-not the one taken because of what's popular. The FLDS are practicing the so called sacred honorable system right now. Are you defending them as well? Have you read accounts of the women who get out of that brain washed environment?

What is immoral to you?