Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"


Guest Lori

Recommended Posts

If we do not question doctrine that is contradictory to the teachings of Christ, then who is to say that we won't plowing into the Twin Towers. If polygamy feels evil and I am obeying God's commandments then why would I go against that feeling just because Joseph told me to. Those women were told they would be destroyed if they didn't obey him. They worshiped him. They couldn't believe he could error.

Here is more from David Whitmer:

Why, oh! why is it that you will continue to trust in an arm of flesh? Why will you cling to Joseph Smith, who was only a man, and believe all his revelations as if they were from God's own mouth? Joseph Smith cannot save you in eternity! Cease to trust in him or in any other man; turn away from man entirely, and do not consider any man, but look to God and to his written word, for BY IT shall you be judged at the last day, and not by the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

Brother Joseph must have set up his idol in his heart, or he would not have prayed to the Lord to know wherein David and Solomon were justified in polygamy, when God says in the Book of Mormon that they were not justified in it; that it was abominable before Him. David, Solomon, Saul, and many chosen men of God, afterwards drifted into error and lost the spirit of God, and why not Joseph Smith? Will you answer? Was not Joseph Smith a man subject to like passions? Had you been with him as much as I was, and knew him as I knew him, you would also know that he could fall into error and transgression: but with all his weaknesses, I always did love him. No man was ever perfect but Christ. Uzziah fell into the snare of Satan, through pride, after serving God in humility for fifty-two years, (2. Chron. xxvi). "I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria." (Jer. xxiii: 13). "I have seen in the prophets a horrible thing," (Jer. xxiii: 14). "The prophets prophesy falsely," (Jer. v: 31). "For the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of her priests," (Lam. iv: 13). "Thus saith the Lord, woe unto the foolish prophets," (Ezek. xiii: 3). There were many prophets and chosen men of God, who afterwards fell into error, and who lost the Spirit of God, and produced false prophecies and revelations in the name of the Lord. Why should any one refuse to investigate as to the truth of the Book of Mormon, because Joseph Smith went into error after being called of God to translate it? Kind reader, think of this, and beware how you hastily condemn that book which I know to be the word of God; for his own voice and an angel from heaven declared the truth of it unto me, and to two other witnesses who testified on their deathbed that it was true. You say that angels do not appear unto men in these days, but the Word of God says: Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Heb. i: 14.) There are now heirs of salvation upon earth, and I tell you of a truth that angels do minister unto them in these days. I hope the reader now understands this matter, viz: that no one who is seeking for truth honestly and without prejudice, will refuse to investigate the Book of Mormon because of Joseph Smith s errors. The teachings of the Book of Mormon are pure and holy, for it is the religion of Christ, set forth in plainness and simplicity.

After reading this can you think of any false prophesies by our prophets and revelations that have been hidden away and taken out of the Doctrine of our church? I can think of a few. Most of them were by the polygamist prophets.

Link to comment
The Book of Mormon was all translated from the seer stone and U and T. The D & C was from his own thoughts/revelations.

A quick look through some of the headers of the Doctrine and Covenants show D&C 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 having been received through the Urim and Thummim.

Were those revelations in the original Book of Commandments though? David Whitmer said that the ones from the Seer stone and U & T were from God. Polygamy was not through the stone or U & T.

Link to comment

I was trying to think in the most spiritual way I know how to accept polygamy as a possible righteous commandment. In trying to perfect the Saints, how would this happen for me if I were to live it? I would give my husband a wife and be totally selfless and not expect any extra love and so on. I still can't imagine how one can overcome the knowledge that your husband is making love in the next room unless I lost all intimate feelings for my husband and just loved him as a brother. That would be impossible for me but maybe that's how they did it. Maybe the whole idea that they were bringing spirits into the world and into the new Kingdom was their goal and it took away any carnal feelings-which would perfect the woman because she would be loving God more than her husband to bring these souls to earth and that is the first and greatest commandment.

An important element of it is that the first wife give her consent. (poor Emma had most of the Relief Society married to her husband without her consent) The first wife seems to be more important and was treated as such. I think it must have helped tremendously to have the wife pick who her husband married. She may have a sisterly love for somebody and it would take away the jealousy. The problem is the love/intimacy part that seems impossible to overcome. The husband and wife becoming one and cleaving unto eachother and nobody else is gone. That beautiful part of a marriage that I can't imagine not having is destroyed in polygamy. The women must have been numb or they really are Saints!

What doesn't make sense is how this perfects a man. Physiologically to procreate involoves a carnal desire to a certain degree or it won't happen. You can have love and spiritual desires but natural attraction has to be there. How is this perfecting man when he takes any woman he desires to espouse? How is he leaving the carnal desires behind if he is having any wife he desires? And then bragging about it. (Brigham Young said some pretty horrible things) The fruits of it for a man produced arrogant, boastful men who were taking to bed with 14 year old girls when they had too many that were neglected already. Why weren't the elders allowed the chance to marry those girls? Just because they weren't high priests doesnt mean they were not just as righteous. It's strange that we elevate people in the church to being more righteous than us just because of their calling. This is exactly what David Whitmer speaks of when he opposes the revelation of HIGH PRIESTS. From all the reading I have done, I see nothing more righteous in the prophets of old than any of the other men that were faithful members.

Link to comment
Polygamy was not through the stone or U & T.

This one was:

Jacob 2:30 (regarding polygamy): 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.

Was that added later or was that in the original Book of Mormon?

I always think of Abraham and Sarah not being able to conceive when I hear that scripture. In the Old Testament it doesn't say God commanded them. It says Sarah offered Hagar to him. The scripture doesn't make it a commandment for exaltation so why does Joseph teach it that way and reveal it that way?

Link to comment
Was that added later or was that in the original Book of Mormon?

Here is the Jacob 2:30 from the 1830 edition

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.

Lori, if I may, I'd like to ask a few questions to help us know what you're trying to argue, or where you currently stand.

1) Do you hate polygamy? Or just church members involvements in polygamy? Or both?

2) Is polygamy your only real gripe with the church? I ask this because you have briefly mentioned a few other problems, but you haven't focused on them really, you always come back to polygamy

3) How do you reconcile David Whitmer's statements that the Book of Mormon doesn't teach polygamy when the Book of Mormon does allow for it in Jacob 2:30?

4) You have read Mormon Polygamy, which obviously paints polygamy in a bad light. You seem to have full trust in what this book says. Have you sought after any books that support polygamy in the early church, solely to get a different perspective to attempt to get a more complete understanding of this?

Link to comment

Lori, if I may, I'd like to ask a few questions to help us know what you're trying to argue, or where you currently stand.

1) Do you hate polygamy? Or just church members involvements in polygamy? Or both?

2) Is polygamy your only real gripe with the church? I ask this because you have briefly mentioned a few other problems, but you haven't focused on them really, you always come back to polygamy

3) How do you reconcile David Whitmer's statements that the Book of Mormon doesn't teach polygamy when the Book of Mormon does allow for it in Jacob 2:30?

4) You have read Mormon Polygamy, which obviously paints polygamy in a bad light. You seem to have full trust in what this book says. Have you sought after any books that support polygamy in the early church, solely to get a different perspective to attempt to get a more complete understanding of this?

to answer your questions-

1) yes I hate polygamy not the church members practicing it. I feel betrayed by the leaders I was taught to admire and emulate by their example. We are taught to never speak or think anything negative of a prophet.

2) I also have a problem with the Blacks and the priesthood but I haven't even gone there yet. I am dealing with the polygamy one first. I also have a problem with all the changing of revelations-not that God doesn't continue to reveal, but why he would change his mind on different items and contradict the Holy Scriptures. If he is not a God of confusion.

3) This one I can't. That's why I have tried to find some way to understand it.

4) I didn't know there were any good books on polygamy because nobody talks about it in the church out here. I just checked FARMS to see their reviews on the books I found on AMAZON to make sure they were historically accurate. The history paints itself in a negative light, not the books. Todd Compton's book drew lots of conclusions (logical ones) but Mormon Polygamy was pretty factual with hardly any conclusions.

I want to get a different perspective on it but it's hard to believe these women were not brain washed. One girl I read of spoke of how she always admired her mother for living the higher law and then when she became a polygamist wife she realized how horrible it was. Why can't we look at the FLDS church to see how good it is? They are living the higher law of the Restored Church according to Joseph Smith. Illegal? That didn't matter to the Prophets before.

Link to comment
Have you sought after any books that support polygamy in the early church, solely to get a different perspective to attempt to get a more complete understanding of this?

Helix, I don't mean to derail your dialogue with Lori, but I have a quick question. I am a Mormon who does not believe the doctrine of plural marriage to be of God. However, I do want to keep an open mind and try to read all sides to every question. That is one of the reasons I am here.

In my study of plural marriage, I have found little to support the practice other than testimonies that Joseph was a prophet of God. It seems to me that plural marriage is mostly supported by things that have nothing to do with it. That is, the only apparent way for me to believe that plural marriage was a divine commandment is to base it on a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet. There appears to be no book that can paint plural marriage in a positive light on its own merits, without the need to draw on the authority of a testimony of Joseph.

Your question to Lori about whether she has sought after any books that support polygamy made me wonder if you have any such books in mind? I see that you looked on Amazon and FARMS, as have I to no avail. I don't believe there are any such books, but would appreciate any insights you can share.

Link to comment

Lori, thanks for the responses.

I want to get a different perspective on it but it's hard to believe these women were not brain washed.

Have you read the testimonies of why many of these women joined it? I know I've stumbled across many where they weren't sure about it, but after praying very deeply about it, felt it was the will of the Lord. The impression I got from these testimonies that it was not brain washing at all. As for sources for these quotes....

Your question to Lori about whether she has sought after any books that support polygamy made me wonder if you have any such books in mind?

Heh, no I don't. I can't even remember where I've stumbled across these testimonies that I mentioned to Lori. Polygamy early in the church isn't an area I'm well versed in. I'm just helping to clear what confusion I can. Also I wanted to ask Lori if she sought for different material, since it seems the one book she fully trusts has an anti-polygamy slant to it. As we all know, sometimes books don't exactly accurately portray what happened.

If anyone else here knows any good books or websites on early church members experiences with and testimonies of polygamy, please share.

Link to comment
Polygamy was not through the stone or U & T.

This one was:

Jacob 2:30 (regarding polygamy): 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.

Jacob 2:30 is not regarding just plural wives. It includes concubines and whoredomes. To interpret this passage the way you apparently do, that God may command polygamy at times, would actually mean that he may command polygamy, concubinage and whoredoms as he sees fit.

sr

Link to comment
The Book of Mormon was all translated from the seer stone and U and T. The D & C was from his own thoughts/revelations.

A quick look through some of the headers of the Doctrine and Covenants show D&C 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 having been received through the Urim and Thummim.

Were those revelations in the original Book of Commandments though? David Whitmer said that the ones from the Seer stone and U & T were from God. Polygamy was not through the stone or U & T.

Lori, it occurs to me you are perhaps too uncritical of Whitmer and too accepting of a premise that is plainly unsupportable.

If we accept, for example, that the First Vision and Kirtland Temple visions of the Master were true revelations, remembering they were not received through seer stone or U&T, then the premise that section 132 is false because it wasn't received therethrough is unsupportable. It means you, and Whitmer, are focusing on the wrong thing.

Moreover, if Whitmer is wrong about the necessity of the seer stone or U&T and at the same time accusing the then Saints of trusting the arm of flesh and requiring that they focus only on the written word of G-d (as defined by him), then who is really in a muddle? I assert Whitmer's elevation of written word as received through "study aids" is idolotry.

Link to comment

Unfrotunately Lori we are faced with a canundrum:

"Though Shall not Kill"

vs

"Moses slaughter ever Man, Woman, Child, Beast, and Yellow dog that wags its tale"

"Abraham go kill your son"

Should you not hate Murder just as badly as Polygamy?

Yet... Even God uses it at times. Thus I see SR1030s assurtion to be.... well... Water under my bridge! <TRIPP TRAPP TRIPP TRAPP>

As the Ecclesiast says:

Eccls 3

1 TO every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

And I would add...

8.5 A time to practice polygamy, and a time to not practice polygamy.

Link to comment
Yet...  Even God uses it at times.  Thus I see SR1030s assurtion to be....  well... Water under my bridge!  <TRIPP TRAPP TRIPP TRAPP>

Your posts are pretty lame Zak. LDS have yet to adequately deal with the contradiction of Jacob 1:15 and 2:24 with D&C 132. There simply is no possible way to avoid the contradition. The D&C states that in only one thing did David sin, yet Jacob states there were many.

Throwing in Jacob 2:30, where God may at times command plural wives, concubinage and whoredoms at best introduces yet another contradiction. Obviously the writer of the BOM did not intend to support polygamy.

sr

Link to comment
Back to my original question-is it not possible that David Whitmer was right and who here has studied about the early apostates? I am really interested in why so many left because so far it seems to be because of Joseph's secret wives.

Yes. There were many who left the church because of polygamy. The church lost some leaders during the Nauvoo era because they couldn't believe it was a divine command. Because of it's secretive nature during these years, there were only whispers among the general body of the church, but the leadership (and the women involved) knew about it.

I think it was an experiment which simply didn't work in America. In countries where polyamy endures, the man MUST have the means to support additional wives, and is usually required to prove it. These early leaders for the most part couldn't support their large families. Look at Orson Pratt for example. He was one of the guys who couldn't accept it in the beginning. Once he got a taste of it though, he couldn't stop. And he couldn't support his families. How does a guy get sent off on mission after mission, and expect to support ten families? One of his wives actually died of starvation after being packed off to Tooele. Only one out of six of those children lived to be married. This poor women simply didn't have the means to support the children fathered by Orson Pratt whenever he decided to visit her in Tooele. She was literally starving to death while he was honeymooning with his seventeen year old bride. He was fifty seven at the time. His first wife, Sarah, endured plural marriage for years, bore him many children, and then divorced him because she became disillusioned with it.

How did Brigham Young support all of his wives? Where the heck did all his money come from? I'm guessing through the resources of the church. His wives were the lucky ones. The average polygamist spent so much time on missions or running from the law that the wives were left to scrounge a living for their large families, and they rarely saw their husbands. I don't believe the Lord intended for marriage to be like this. I think his ideal was in the story of Adam and Eve. It doesn't always work out that way, but I think one man and one woman is what God generally had in mind for his children.

I don't think it's healthy to dwell on the past either. But it's even less healthy to completely ignore or rewrite it. Once you realize the reality of it, it takes some time to make sense of it. I make sense of it by believing that it was a misguided effort of Joseph Smith to emulate the leaders of the Old Testament. Joseph Smith was the first one to admit that he was vulnerable to deception. I almost believe that, if he hadn't been murdered, that he would have discontinued the practice. As it happened though, Brigham Young, believing that it was a necessity, made it a widespread practice among the leadership.

Link to comment
The Bible says Christ was sinless.  But under his own admission he was numbered among the transgressors and was an accessory to assulating a guard.

Hows that for a contradiction for ya.

:P

If there were biblical contradictions, that would not somehow make the contradictions concerning polygamy within LDS scripture go away. The fact is, LDS scripture contains a major contradiction concerning polygamy. This is one of the indicators that it is not the word of God.

sr

Link to comment
I think his ideal was in the story of Adam and Eve. It doesn't always work out that way, but I think one man and one woman is what God generally had in mind for his children.

Amen.

That is the Ideal... however... at certian times it has its uses.

Link to comment
The Book of Mormon was all translated from the seer stone and U and T. The D & C was from his own thoughts/revelations.

A quick look through some of the headers of the Doctrine and Covenants show D&C 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 having been received through the Urim and Thummim.

Were those revelations in the original Book of Commandments though? David Whitmer said that the ones from the Seer stone and U & T were from God. Polygamy was not through the stone or U & T.

So, we have to disregard all of Isaiah, Jeremiah, all of the other minor and major prophets of the OT, the writings of the apostles, etc., because they didn't receive their revelations via a seer stone or U&T???? That's rather a ridiculous assumption to me.

God reveals in whatever method he so chooses. The U&T and the Seer Stone made it easier to concentrate and receive a revelation, but were not the only methods. Or else, how do we explain the First Vision and the visits of Moroni prior to the release of the gold plates and U&T to Joseph?

You are presuming that David Whitmer's words are correct, while Joseph's were wrong. Isn't that somewhat arrogant, or at least very twisted to take Whitmer's words over Joseph's, without any second thought? That's like an atheist saying that God doesn't exist, because Nietzche said that God is dead! Not to diminish Nietzche any, but last I saw, his ideas on God were more hearsay than expert witness. The same with David Whitmer in many of the things he professed to speak about.

Link to comment
I'm well aware of Compton's "statements". But having researched further into it, it find it not fully credible. And like I said, I don't find it impossible that Joseph may have had a sexual discression or two, but I find no credible evidence of it especially to the degree anti's like to spin it.

Especially in those times, the Rumor Mill and False Assumptions, was most certainly dominante, and not seemingly impossible, it would also apply to this kind of thing as well don't you think?

Lee,

I will ask you like I did Zak.

We KNOW Brigham, Heber, Wilfred et all had sex with their plural wives.

So, why would we think that JS did not? Or why do we want to think that? It seems to me that if he initiated it and his followers continued it and had sexual relations with their spouses that either Joseph did as well or BY and other perverted the doctrine.

Which is it?

Why do you want to think JS did not have sex with the other wives?

Teancum

Link to comment

Teacum:

Unfortunately there is FEW FACTS either way. The only real evidence that we have is that there are NO known children of JS other than what he had with Emma. In those days before effective birth control. Such an event while possible, is highly improbable.

Would it bother ME if JS had sex with his other wives? No, I would still accept him as the Prophet of the Restoration.

Link to comment
Teacum:

Unfortunately there is FEW FACTS either way. The only real evidence that we have is that there are NO known children of JS other than what he had with Emma. In those days before effective birth control. Such an event while possible, is highly improbable.

Would it bother ME if JS had sex with his other wives? No, I would still accept him as the Prophet of the Restoration.

The single ones maybe. What would REALLY bother me is if he had sex with his wives who were already married to someone else.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...