Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"

[Zakuska]

Yes but to say wives it would have to start with the husband. You are starting with the wife.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Yes but to say wives it would have to start with the husband. You are starting with the wife.

The New Testament does not speak of adding a "wife" to a "wife" to get "wives" ... The New Testment and Jesus speak of man and "wife" ...

[Zakuska]

Yet Christ never puts an end to the OT practice of taking another wife and in the Mark 10 verse he leaves it open that a man could take another wife and not commit adultury as long as he didnt divorce the first.

We're back full circle Johnny and Im getting dizzy.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Yet Christ never puts an end to the OT practice of taking another wife and in the Mark 10 verse he leaves it open that a man could take another wife and not commit adultury as long as he didnt divorce the first. 

If a man's wife dies he can take another wife.

Christ never says a man take another wife and another wife and another wife and another wife and another wife if all his wives are alive.

[Dunamis]

It's the words and thoughts of those young girls and women who struggle with it that I am concerned about. I've read their accounts of what Joseph Smith said to them; the pressure he applied; the threats he offered; the rewards he promised. I've read about their struggles; their pain; their sorrow; their difficulty in accepting what he was asking them to do. Coercing any person into a marriage they would not choose on their own is abusive, IMO.

I am going to speak plainly because we do not like what we are seeing on a number of threads. We have no intention of letting this board be turned into a never ending paeon dedicated to "my concerns". That is what killed ZLMB. If you want to engage in armchair psychoanalysis of LDS pioneers go back to ZLMB. There may be some posters left there who enjoy it. If you want to make your point and then present some evidence we would love to have you.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Yet Mark 10 inferes that he could do just that. 

It does not infer that ... Explain how Mark 10 is about polygamy ... polygamy is about a man having many wives ... Mark 10 is about divorce and adultery.

Mark 10

[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

[3] And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

[4] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

[5] And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

[7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

[10] And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

[12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

[Zakuska]

Again Johnny... you missed it! Let me point it out.

[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

[12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

If a man or woman divorce and marry another... they have commited adultury.

Hmmm.... Looks like there went more than 2/3 the population of the United States into the lake of fire!

It says nothing about a man taking another wife while remaining married to the first. Thus infering OT law of taking another wife and not diminishing the upkeep of the other. (Ex 21:7-11)

[johnny]

Zakuska

[Blink]

Hi,

Lucy Walker & Melissa Lott Willes, affidavits from the Partridge sisters before U.S. Judge John F. Phillips in the Temple Lot Case. His descision went against the testimony & legally invalidated the claim they were his wives. He felt if there was any truth to what they said they were but "sports in nest hiding." It's doubtful Joseph Smith Jr. would have been convicted on a co-habitation charge. always when those high & mighty academics cite from that case they leave out the significant decision of the judge. Questions remaining not withstanding William Law was guilty of perjury in the Expositor because he had no case. Joseph Smith Jr. when he declared himself innocent only did what all U.S. citizens have the right to do plead not guilty to a legally weak case.

Sincerely,

Dale

I do not understand what the judge is saying here.

What does this mean: "His descision went against the testimony & legally invalidated the claim they were his wives. He felt if there was any truth to what they said they were but "sports in nest hiding.""

The judge legally invalidated the claim that they were his wives? Does that mean he said the women were deliberately lying? Or were they mistaken in what it meant to be legally married? Does that mean the women thought they were legally married but they weren't? What does it mean when it says "sports in nest hiding."?

[Moxy]

Hi,

Lucy Walker & Melissa Lott Willes, affidavits from the Partridge sisters before U.S. Judge John F. Phillips in the Temple Lot Case. His descision went against the testimony & legally invalidated the claim they were his wives. He felt if there was any truth to what they said they were but "sports in nest hiding." It's doubtful Joseph Smith Jr. would have been convicted on a co-habitation charge. always when those high & mighty academics cite from that case they leave out the significant decision of the judge. Questions remaining not withstanding William Law was guilty of perjury in the Expositor because he had no case. Joseph Smith Jr. when he declared himself innocent only did what all U.S. citizens have the right to do plead not guilty to a legally weak case.

Sincerely,

Dale

I do not understand what the judge is saying here.

What does this mean: "His descision went against the testimony & legally invalidated the claim they were his wives. He felt if there was any truth to what they said they were but "sports in nest hiding.""

The judge legally invalidated the claim that they were his wives? Does that mean he said the women were deliberately lying? Or were they mistaken in what it meant to be legally married? Does that mean the women thought they were legally married but they weren't? What does it mean when it says "sports in nest hiding."?

QUOTE 

Thus infering OT law of taking another wife and not diminishing the upkeep of the other. (Ex 21:7-11) 

Does the Mormon Church practice the OT law's of divorce?

Marriage has been renewed "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church [1 Cor 7:39; Eph 5:31-32]

This post has been edited by johnny on Apr 22 2005, 05:09 AM

That is actually a great point, LDS only take from the OT what is needs to justifiy Polygamy, but the other things like Divorce we omit. A true double standard.

Ofcourse I find that Polygamy is a true abomination in the eyes of the Lord....do you know how I know this? Because I have prayed and asked. It was overwhelming that this was an abomination. I can't do something wrong and feel good about it...it just does not work.

[Mortvola]

Mortvola: I'm interested in your claim, CI. Do you have evidence to support it?

John Corrill: Here's a starting place. There are references that lead to the original sources.

http://www.google.com/custom?q=sword&cof=A...josephsmith.org

John,

I am calling for evidence specifically for the claim that "Joseph Smith never said [he was threatened with immediate death by an angel with a sword]" (emphasis mine).

Is there such evidence in the links that you provided or was CI simply claiming this because it fits his perception of Smith?

Thanks,

Mort

[Zakuska]

Johhny

- Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage (CCC2400)

Nice to know the Catholic church thinks God's a undiginified sinner.

2 Sam 12

7

[Confidential Informant]

So, let me ask you this... IF JS did indeed do those things which John, I, and others believe he did, would you have difficulty with it? Or is it that even if he did do these things it wouldn't be a problem because God was directing the whole thing?

Whoa! Now hold on. Are you intimating that Joseph Smith was guilty of physical abuse? If so, what evidence do you have for that? It was my understanding that John was arguing for some sort of "emotional" abuse.

Why don't you clarify what is being discussed here.

C.I.

[John Corrill]

Dunamis: If you want to engage in armchair psychoanalysis of LDS pioneers go back to ZLMB...If you want to make your point and then present some evidence we would love to have you.

John Corrill: In addition to the evidence I have already provided (which was written by a trained and licensed Psychologist), I submit the follow:

A forced marriage is a marriage that is performed under duress and without the full and informed consent or free will of both parties. Being under duress includes feeling both physical and emotional pressure.

A forced marriage is considered to be domestic violence and an abuse of human rights.

http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarri...cedmarriage.htm

[Forced Marriage] Cases can be difficult, as the young person doesn

[Dale]

Hi,

Blink the legal status of the key plural wives was decided upon in that case. The Judge didn't say they lied. He stated if they were his wives at most under U.S. law they were but "sports in nest hiding." The Judge ruled on the legal merits of granting the women status as plural wives was rejected under his understanding of the law.

The Judge was provided in the case with published cards that denied polygamy in Nauvoo signed by people like Eliza R. Snow. When she signed that statement she committed perjury under U.S. law sincere as she may have been she legally invalidated her later testimony. William Law based on his heresy rumor mongering likewise had no legal case. I bought Price Publishing Company's reprint of the Temple Lot Case & smile when I see books cite the testimonies but leave things out. Signature Book's & Utah Lighthouse Ministries is the worst sources on polygamy & Joseph Smith Jr. I think Richard & Pamela Price do better research at Price Publishing Compan than them.

A fun example the Tanners cite a part of the book & leave out the fact on the related material Eliza R. Snow wrote someone a letter specifically denying she was Joseph Smith's plural wife. What else was the Judge to do but decide against a weak case?

At http://www.restorationbookstore.org you can buy the Temple Lot Case, read an online book about polygamy & Joseph Smith Jr. if you would like. Vision Magazine is continuing the studies until they can put them in a second volume. of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.

There's not much new about Joseph Smith Jr. & plural marriage these days. Every interesting quotes been used over & over again. Some times they add new commentary. A few new documents dating to Nauvoo have been gotten out. But it's the same old stories repeated again & again.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Dunamis]

This is emotional pressure; given under duress (persuasion, coercion); and it caused significant conflict and turmoil in the girls...so much so that the "grave" became desirable.

This is abuse.

Perhaps it is. But you have not shown any link between your psychologists and these women.

We know what you think. We know what you feel. If you cannot produce anything more than that go onto another subject or leave the board. We have a virtual thesis exploring every nook and cranny of disgust. ENOUGH.

[Jeff]

Was Joseph possibly deceived?  David Whitmer gives a powerful testimony about Joseph changing revelations and falling away.  He makes a strong case for this possibility.  It would explain the contradictions from the D & C to the B of M.

It might be a worthwhile task to do some historical research on how many of the original 12 left the church that Joseph Smith originally founded.

Then ask yourself why.

Jeff

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,[\b]

Nice to know the Catholic church thinks God's a undiginified sinner.

Nice to know that David was prior to renewing of Marriage "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church [1 Cor 7:39; Eph 5:31-32]

Because it inferes exactly that... That a man can take a second wife while remaining married to the first and it not be considered adultury.

You are reading way to much into Mark 10 ... Mark 10 is not inferring that a man can take a second wife while his first wife is still alive.

Yes the Church does... the hard hearted members... now thats another story. (eg HENRY VIII)

In what situations does the Mormon Church allow divorce?

Are these situations as described by Old or the New Testament?

[Zakuska]

Nice to know that David was prior to renewing of Marriage "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church [1 Cor 7:39; Eph 5:31-32]

Yet the new covenant was the old covenant in cognito.

Oh and BTW the 1 cor 7:39 verse.. you might want to steer clear of. Because it points out Paul thought the second coming was in his day.

You are reading way to much into Mark 10 ... Mark 10 is not inferring that a man can take a second wife while his first wife is still alive.

According to you.

In what situations does the Mormon Church allow divorce?

Both my Sisters got divorces. But both of their husbands commited adultury too.

Are these situations as described by Old or the New Testament?

Yes.

[Mortvola]

JC:  Joseph Smith said he was threatened with immediate death by an angel with a sword.

Joseph Smith never said any such thing. Other people claimed he said it something like four decades after the fact.

I'm interested in your claim that Joseph "never said any such thing", CI. Do you have evidence to support it?

Thanks,

Mort

[John Corrill]

Dunamis: ...you have not shown any link between your psychologists and these women...If you cannot produce anything more than that go onto another subject or leave the board. We have a virtual thesis exploring every nook and cranny of disgust. ENOUGH.

John Corrill: I'm sorry. I really don't understand what you are asking me to do. Help me out here. I'd really like to understand.

[Confidential Informant]

I'm interested in your claim that Joseph "never said any such thing", CI.  Do you have evidence to support it?

Nope. And in fact, it wouldn't surprise me to find out he did say that because it follows a biblical pattern of how God sometimes deals with reluctant prophets. (See Moses, Zipporah and the sharp, bloody stone). My point was that the quote is attributed to Smith only. There is no evidence he actuallyl said it.

C.I.

[truth dancer]

Hi CI...

So, let me ask you this... IF JS did indeed do those things which John, I, and others believe he did, would you have difficulty with it? Or is it that even if he did do these things it wouldn't be a problem because God was directing the whole thing?

Whoa! Now hold on. Are you intimating that Joseph Smith was guilty of physical abuse? If so, what evidence do you have for that? It was my understanding that John was arguing for some sort of "emotional" abuse.

Why don't you clarify what is being discussed here.

I have not intimated, suggested, impied or stated that JS commited physical abuse. I have NO idea why you would think this. Physical abuse is only one form of abuse.

I do believe JS manipulated, coerced, and used his power and authority to convince/pressure girls and women to marry him. I think this is abusive.

My question to you is... IF these claims of abuse (manipulation, coercion etc.) are true woud you have difficulty with it or would you be OK with it because it was God's will.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this whole thing.

~dancer~

[johnny]

Zakuska writes,

Yet the new covenant was the old covenant in cognito.

In the Old Testament unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law.

Marriage in the new covenant is "in the Lord" ... the old covenant is not "in the Lord".