alpha Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 What about Warren Jeffs? He is doing the EXACT same thing that JS did. Didn't you hear what Dr. Phil said? Warren Jeffs has nothing to do with Mormonism... Link to comment
alpha Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Not being perfect or infallible vs. commiting adultery are two very different things, wouldn't you say?God certainly pointed out the difference to David via Nathan.I don't believe Joseph Smith could be an adulterer and a prophet, do you? Every one has their "moment" in time.At one time maybe he was called to prophesy and then his time was called to an end...over.Happens all the time. Link to comment
truthseeker Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Hmm.. perhaps the US Government should give full disclosure when it comes to things like watergate. Should we expect more from an institution that represents the only true Church on the face of the earth than we expect from the govenrment? Link to comment
alpha Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Hmm.. perhaps the US Government should give full disclosure when it comes to things like watergate. Should we expect more from an institution that represents the only true Church on the face of the earth than we expect from the govenrment? The expectations should be held higher...for the church because it is to represent the King of all kings... Link to comment
Brackite Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Hello thesometimesaint, BY had some marriages on the trek west. There is no indication that sex was involved. Some of the women even deny it. After arriving in the SL Valley the concepts of polygamy expanded to include sex.Sorry thesometimesaint, but that is wrong. BY had childen born to him by at least two of his plural wives while he was crossing the plains. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Brackite:I know at lest one woman who was married to BY for th trek west . Lived out her days in SLC without EVER having sex with BY. Link to comment
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 A question was asked, Could Joseph Smith be both an adulterer and a prophet? I suppose he could. We don't dictate to God who He choses for His prophets. Was Joseph both an adulterer and a prophet? No, he was not an adulterer, and yes, he was a prophet. Anyone can know with the absolute surety that I know this to be true. Link to comment
alpha Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 A question was asked, Could Joseph Smith be both an adulterer and a prophet? I suppose he could. We don't dictate to God who He choses for His prophets. Was Joseph both an adulterer and a prophet? No, he was not an adulterer, and yes, he was a prophet. Anyone can know with the absolute surety that I know this to be true. Charity,We can find examples in the Bible where the Lord used the scum of the earth and the dumb to get his plan across...He uses the one's who are at their worse, so that He ALONE can receive all of the glory...It is not easy for the general public or the general "Christians" to be accepting of a modern day prophet...just as it was in the days of Noah.Even I would find myself questioning preachers who claimed to have gifts and such...it is human nature.What I am finding, is that it is more common for LDS because most were raised thinking or knowing that they have a prophet...just like us Christians whether we go to church or not sing "Jesus loves the Little Children" or "Jesus Loves Me" because we hear other kids in class singing or hearing it on Little House on the Prarie(at least that's where I first heard it). There is another "culture' sort of that many of us don't grasp...or appreciate as you would. Link to comment
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Alpha, I was raised in a religion neutral environment. No religious affiliation for either of my parents. I think I went to Bible school one summer when I was 8 or 9. I had a "religious awakening" when I was in college. I had a roommate who was Catholic and I went to mass with her on many occasions. I had a boyfriend who was Methodist and I went to church with him for quite a while. But nothing touched me. Until I went to the LDS Church. I took the missionary discussions, read The Articles of Faith by James Talmadge, started reading the Book of Mormon, and joined the Church within 6 weeks. I had no tradition of believing in prophets. I came to know Joseph Smith was a prophet before I knew a man could be a prophet and not look like Charleton Heston. Link to comment
alpha Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Alpha, I was raised in a religion neutral environment. No religious affiliation for either of my parents. I think I went to Bible school one summer when I was 8 or 9. I had a "religious awakening" when I was in college. I had a roommate who was Catholic and I went to mass with her on many occasions. I had a boyfriend who was Methodist and I went to church with him for quite a while. But nothing touched me. Until I went to the LDS Church. I took the missionary discussions, read The Articles of Faith by James Talmadge, started reading the Book of Mormon, and joined the Church within 6 weeks. I had no tradition of believing in prophets. I came to know Joseph Smith was a prophet before I knew a man could be a prophet and not look like Charleton Heston. Thanks for elaborating...I'd like to ask some personal question, if that is OK.Religious awakening? What is this? Did you go to a church and get the Holy Ghost or something of a spiritual experience?Did you ever read your Bible before taking the discussions?What touched you at the LDS church?Did you think that it was very ritualistic...catholic of the sort? Link to comment
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Alpha, thanks for asking:"Religious awakening." I had never had an interest in religion at all. But my Catholic roommate wanted me to go to mass with her. And I did and began to wonder what religion was all about, generically. I asked my boyfriend to take me to his church. He didn't ordinarily go. Someone had made a comment once that I must be Mormon because I didn't smoke or drink. So I went to the local ward by myself. I didn't know any Mormons. And felt at home. That was my first feeling from the moment of walking in the building. "I am home." Of course, seeing a person they didn't know, they immediately got me in touch with the missionaries. And then followed quiet witnesses to the truthfulness of what I was learning. Later I would have some extremely strong experiences. The strongest witnesses of the Holy Ghost are that Joseph Smith is a prophet, and that tithing is a true principle.And some very sacred, and spiritual manifestations, not for a public message board. "Did you ever read your Bible before taking the discussions?" The year before I had read the whole Bible in a "Bible as Literature" college course. The text was treated very respectfully and the discussions were over the concepts. There was never any talk of errors or contradictions. The tests were quite rigorous, requiring hours of study and I felt I knew the Bible fairly well. (I got an A. )"What touched you at the LDS church?" Like I said, the feeling I was where I should be. After I learned about this concept, I think it was because I remembered what I had been taught in the pre-mortal life, and recognized it."Did you think that it was very ritualistic...catholic of the sort?" Actually, compared to the Catholic services I had just been attending, and even the Methodist, it seemed very "unchurchy" no ritual, no one wore any kind of special clothes. They seemed like ordinary people. I hope I answered what you wanted to know. Link to comment
alpha Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Alpha, thanks for asking:"Religious awakening." Link to comment
charity Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Alpha, my language is inadequate to explain the "felt at home" experience. It wasn't because anyone called me "sweetheart" or they were friendly and welcoming. I have had those experiences, too. This was different. And how can I be sure? When you have a witness of the Holy Ghost you know. I certainly do not say I had a vision, but the way Joseph Smith explained his vision, using Paul as his example, is the way I feel about my testimony. JS-H 1: 24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.Thanks for reading. Link to comment
alpha Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 When you have a witness of the Holy Ghost you know. I certainly do not say I had a vision, but they wa Joseph Smith explained his vision, using Paul as his example, is the way I feel about my testimony. JS-H 1: 24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.Thanks for reading. Sounds wonderful...Thanks Link to comment
Chris Jodrey Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Just a comment:A great percentage of the population of Mexico is Catholic, I would guess maybe 90%. Now, the vast majority of those Catholics, maybe 95% of them, truly believe that they're supposed to worship the Virgin Mary. They are completely religiously ignorant and closed off, do not keep or even know the Ten Commandments, etc. It's more of a culture than a religion. Another majority of them, maybe 98%, do not regularly attend mass (although they were forced to learn it all as children in order to do their first communion), which is probably the reason for this supreme ignorance.Now, that's just wrong in my eyes. If they don't go to mass, start organizing "home teachers," or have the priests do something useful. Man cannot be saved in ignorance. If because of ignorance one knows not what faith, repentance, the commandments, or even the Bible is, then the sin falls upon those that have the responsibility to teach them. Simply put, I dislike the Mexican Roman Catholic Church for that reason.I think there is a fine line. Consider D&C 68:25 and Jacob 1:19. The Church has a great responsibility to instruct and teach... things that are pertinent to the salvation of man, not historical facts. Sometimes history helps us appreciate what we have and teaches us important things. But as for details such as Joseph Smith participating in polygamy I don't see the big importance or the big secret.I honestly don't know when I found out he had more than one wife - I simply don't remember. But it doesn't bother me. I have never been aware that his wives in the beginning were kept secret. I know that at least to some they certainly weren't. Lorenzo Snow knew immediately that JS had married his sister. In fact, the Prophet spoke with many brethren one on one about it. D&C 131 and 132 are quite clear. The principle of plural marriage was a revelation through Joseph Smith in 1842. That's also clear from OD 1. But maybe I'm missing the point. Link to comment
AKS Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 It's good that it doesn't bother you, Chris. But to some it is very troubling. To some it raises the possibility that just maybe JS was not quite what we were taught, or what we expected. If you dig deeper, you begin to find conflicting information (see Jacob 2:24, and yes I've heard the defense and don't buy it). The NT is also quite clear on the matter. So the logical progression goes that if JS was not truly acting in the name of God in the matter of polygamy then maybe there were other matters where he (JS) was less than honest. Just my opinion, as in-eloquent and poorly written as it may be. Link to comment
Dale Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 AKS I am curious to why some find Joseph Smith's secret practice of polygamy so very troubling. I reject LDS interpretation of Jacob 2. Joseph Smith taught in 1829 "Some revelations were of men, others of God, others of the devil." He knew his revelations wern't innerant because he was human. He admitted to being decieved in telling the bretheren to sell the Book of Mormon copy-right. So on July 12th 1843 he could have been wrong. But to be fair he could have been right.As a major tenant of Mormonism the Bible has never been the final authority among LDS, or Community of Christ (RLDS) ever. So if God told Joseph Smith the New Testament & Book of Mormon is wrong I do not find that troubling at all. Of course being an anti-polygamy I prefer him to have been decieved. I don't find him being decieved troubling. Then my church did the right think by sticking by the New Testament & Book of Mormon. I see nothining in what I know of Joseph Smith & polygamy to make me think he was anything but sincere. I don't see him protecting oneself by denying he was a polygamist proves he was a false prophet. I know of no scripture from the Bible that can be mustered to say a prophet couldn't be a polygamist in private while denying it in public. The critics even if he had been public would still be complaining that he cooked up the practice to satisfy his lustful desires. He couldn't win no matter how he handled the rumors about him that were circulating before his death. I think your statement was well put together. I just think it only troubling if to me he made it up protending to act in the name of God. I am not troubled if he recieved what he felt was a revelation true, or false & acted upon it in God's name. I don't see this issue as proving he was less than honest about what he felt about the revelation at all. I don't feel this issue has anything to do as long as he was sincere about other things as well.Then what we have as long as he was possibly sincere a decision to make? Was he ever a true prophet? Was he right or wrong about the revelation? This decision is then a matter of the heart. I feel logic & reason allows me to feel he was sincere. I can then feel satisfied I can apply the Barean test to other things he said & still feel he was a prophet. (Acts 17:11) Others feel logic & reason proves D.&C. 132 as well. I don't agree with that but I am open to changing my position if I am ever satisfied I am wrong.Sincerely,Dale Link to comment
Chris Jodrey Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 It's good that it doesn't bother you, Chris. But to some it is very troubling. To some it raises the possibility that just maybe JS was not quite what we were taught, or what we expected. If you dig deeper, you begin to find conflicting information (see Jacob 2:24, and yes I've heard the defense and don't buy it). The NT is also quite clear on the matter. So the logical progression goes that if JS was not truly acting in the name of God in the matter of polygamy then maybe there were other matters where he (JS) was less than honest. Just my opinion, as in-eloquent and poorly written as it may be. Well, Jacob 2:30 (I think that's the verse) says quite clearly that unless the Lord wants to raise up a people until himself, the principle will not be practiced. The IF is certainly there.But again, why is it so troubling to some? If it was a commandment we shouldn't argue with it. If it wasn't then maybe something was up. The trouble shouldn't be in deciding whether polygamy is OK or not, it's in deciding whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. If he was, then there is no argument. If he was, then that, and a whole slew of other things are wrong and I may as well go atheist. Don't get the formula backwards. Link to comment
alpha Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Just a comment:A great percentage of the population of Mexico is Catholic, I would guess maybe 90%. Now, the vast majority of those Catholics, maybe 95% of them, truly believe that they're supposed to worship the Virgin Mary. They are completely religiously ignorant and closed off, do not keep or even know the Ten Commandments, etc. It's more of a culture than a religion. Another majority of them, maybe 98%, do not regularly attend mass (although they were forced to learn it all as children in order to do their first communion), which is probably the reason for this supreme ignorance.Now, that's just wrong in my eyes. If they don't go to mass, start organizing "home teachers," or have the priests do something useful. Man cannot be saved in ignorance. If because of ignorance one knows not what faith, repentance, the commandments, or even the Bible is, then the sin falls upon those that have the responsibility to teach them. Simply put, I dislike the Mexican Roman Catholic Church for that reason.I think there is a fine line. Consider D&C 68:25 and Jacob 1:19. The Church has a great responsibility to instruct and teach... things that are pertinent to the salvation of man, not historical facts. Sometimes history helps us appreciate what we have and teaches us important things. I dislike the Mexican Roman Catholic Church for that reason.Hi Chris,You may not want to refer to "Mexican"...it is probably world wide.I think many Catholic churches in different regions are noticing this, but they do not progress rapidly...True, My mom's side was "Catholic"...grandmother made all of the grandkids go and sit...catechism, and all. Nothing was ever taught regarding religious lifestyle at home. The lack of morals and respect was common ...the only thing we had to say after we ate was "gracias a Dios" before she allowed us off the table from eating anything and she had the "HEAR" us say it...(she was ev-l by the way.)It is more of a family tradition to have children baptized and confirmed...just another reason to party and the Qinceneras are just another Party.While at Santa Clara University, I took some religious/ philosophy classes and the priest...Father F (won't say his full name) said that the mass or that I didn't have the authority to read and interpret scripture...that is why there are chursh fathers and THEOLOGIANS...So, we as human beings are not qualified as they are to receive proper understanding...Most Catholics are ignorant of the word...and yes, very sad...but that is the way to keep the peace..the less the people know and the less involvement they have, they more power they have...and no one really ever stands against it because the mass can live and do as they please and go to church once a week and act pious while passing a cemetary or church building by giving the sign of the cross, and then go and celebrate...The rituals and visuals keep them holy, I guess.(at least this is what I have experienced with relatives) Link to comment
Dill Pickles Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 from the Pickle jar: while I cannot say I have a lot of experience with the Catholic church, the disrespect in your post troubles me. I have some Pickle friends who are Catholic and they take their religion very seriously and are very devout. The parking lot for our neighborhood Catholic church is full every Sabbath, just as the LDS church parking lot is. Unless we all give each other the respect we would like to have, how can we discuss our differences without jihad? Link to comment
charity Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Ditto, Dill. If there is a question about Catholic and LDS doctrine and practices and how they compare, or whatever, that would be fine. But just to demean adherents in general seems to serve no purpose. Link to comment
Chris Jodrey Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 from the Pickle jar: while I cannot say I have a lot of experience with the Catholic church, the disrespect in your post troubles me. I have some Pickle friends who are Catholic and they take their religion very seriously and are very devout. The parking lot for our neighborhood Catholic church is full every Sabbath, just as the LDS church parking lot is. Unless we all give each other the respect we would like to have, how can we discuss our differences without jihad? This is why I added the "Mexican" part to the front of it. Because I have also noticed this. In fact, there is a good Catholic guy who sometimes writes articles for FAIR. I have seen good strong Catholics in the States, but never (and I really do mean "never") have I seen one in Mexico. I stick with my original statement.I actually have a theory about that. I believe that the majority religion is usually more ignorant - they're protected by numbers, culture, and family. Even the soap operas in Mexico are very Catholic in their use of language, situations, symbolisms, etc. But this can go for other religions as well. In the southern US there are many protestant churches that basically agree with each other. Although they're more open and informed than the Catholics of Mexico, the majority are also pretty ignorant. And yes, the same goes for the Mormons of Utah. I've been there, I've seen it. Many of them simply don't care and don't even go. Those are usually inactives. But even among the actives, there are many problems. On the other hand, minorities usually have to be stronger. They're more aware. In Mexico, the people of almost any religion that isn't Catholic are good honest people - they try to keep the commandments, read the Bible, go to church, etc. Same deal around here. The Church here in Boston is strong (meaning the members are strong) because it's small. Just an interesting thought I had, also so no one will get too offended. Link to comment
Brackite Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Hi Chris,You wrote:Well, Jacob 2:30 (I think that's the verse) says quite clearly that unless the Lord wants to raise up a people until himself, the principle will not be practiced. The IF is certainly there.Are you stating that the Lord God will only raise seed up unto Himself through Polygamy, and that the lord God will not raise up seed through Monogamy??? Anyway, IMO You are taking Jacob 2:30 way out of context. The Lord God intended to raise up seed unto Himself among the Lehites in the BofM through Monogamy Not Polygamy. Here is 1 Nephi 7:1:1 And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise. (Bold Emphasis Mine.) Here is Now 1 Nephi 16:7:7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife. (Bold and Underline Emphasis Mine.) Link to comment
charity Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Brackite, Pardon me, but I think Ishmael had a limited supply of daughters. Laman and Lemuel were rebellious enough already. What would they have been like if Nephi had gotten all the wives, and they hadn't gotten any! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.