For Mormons - How Much Do You Really Know About Joseph Smith?

[Stephen168]

That doesn’t change that he was a Prophet who restored Jesus Christ’s church. Paul was a criminal too as was Peter.

You said he did not do anything illegal…You are wrong.

It is the lies of Joseph Smith that mean to me that he is not prophet. The Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham, both Mormon scripture, and not what Joseph Smith said they were.
Science has proven him wrong.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I don’t believe it’s possible to know the context of historical references. One can only understand the “clarifications” given by people who believe that what the original person said isn’t what he meant.

Except of course when one does believe that the original person meant what he said, but that it doesn’t mean what the person unfamiliar with the theological/ecclesiological context thinks it means.

I would really like to get off this, “what the Pope said” thread. I am not challenging Catholic doctrine. I originally brought this up because I understood that if you weren’t Catholic, you weren’t saved. That has been further clarified to include babies who haven’t been baptized. God will judge you on what you would have done, if you had known (which apparently goes to all non-Catholics through out all time).

I’m okay with that. Let’s just say, “that’s good” and move on.

Except of course that isn’t good. Our point is merely that you misunderstand Catholic teaching on the matter, and that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has already been specifically cited in this thread to demonstrate that the Catholic Church officially teaches that while the normative/“ordinary” way of salvation is receiving the sacraments of Christ’s Church, we also believe in “invincible ignorance” and “baptism of desire”, which is up to God, who, in His infinite knowledge, wisdom, mercy, and justice can determine if someone would have accepted the fulness of the Gospel if they did not have the opportunity to do so in this life, through no fault of their own. No, this does not apparently go to all non-Catholics throughout all time (complete misunderstanding of the belief). Since we humans have no way of knowing, we follow Christ’s command of baptizing all and bringing them to His Church.

Now you may carry on.

 

[Stephen168]

So by this you acknowledge that your invocation of non-water Baptism (which pseudo-Clement seems to not recognize) is not applicable to infants correct?

No. It is not my invocation

 

[Catholic_farmer]

I meant the way you post. When you leave a comment without quoting the person you’re responding to, there is no way to know who you’re responding to. When you quote properly, it leaves a link back to the previous post which allows a person to follow a chain and understand where the comments came from.

Posting the way you are doing it now, requires that I go back through every page trying to find the questions you want us to respond too.

These were questions that occurred to me based on your answers quite a few pages back, but you were busy answering someone else. I tried to ask two more times, but no one answered. Here they are again (I hope I’m not boring anyone else). Thank you, in advance.

1. What about the bible stating, quite clearly, that there will be no new prophets? How could Mormons claim modern day prophets in direct contradiction to this statement? In addition, we are warned about people claiming to be new prophets. How could that not be a warning against Mormon ideology?
2. As far as baptism of the dead, why do you think you must do God’s work? What gives you the idea that you can do God’s work? Do you not trust in His grace? I went out, once, with a Mormon kid in college. He and I argued because he insisted that George Washington (an Episcopalian, who lived and died before the Mormon religion even existed) was Mormon due to baptism of the dead. I find this teaching not only repugnant, but ignorant of free will. I don’t believe that it has any effect, but to the descendants of millions of people supposedly baptized and called Mormon, it’s very disrespectful. I refrain from using Ancestry. com because I do not want my relatives’ names added on any Mormon lists. If I found out their names were on Mormon lists, I would sue the Mormon church.

Has your church removed the Holocaust victims from it’s lists? I believe Jewish leaders insisted on it. I do hope the names of Catholics murdered, such as the priests who died for their faith, were also removed. How can you not see that as disrespectful?

1. I have heard from many Mormons who spoke of being separate from non-Mormons in their family. They were told they wouldn’t see their own children unless they became Mormon. To claim something that is not in the Bible or the traditions of the church sounds like manipulation, rather than truth.
2. Please also speak to the fact that Joseph Smith was a Mason and incorporated much of what he gleamed from Masonic rituals into the Mormon church.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Questions about the CCC. Who is being quoted (I assume the Pope?). What is the part that is not quoted. Is it an explanation of the part that is quoted and if so, is the explanation considered infallible?

This is quite a complicated document. There are articles where are not cross referenced, there are statements which are not quoted and there are clarifications to the otherwise obvious statements.

I have read and find nothing to refute my understanding of Catholics and their religion. If you believe what you said, then it is an understanding that is not supported by the CCC as I understand them. Since the articles are numbered, perhaps you can tell me which one I’m missing that would clear this all up for me.

846 - 848 under the heading “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

First you assume that by linking to that site that I am familiar with it’s entire content. I am not. I believe it’s conclusions were accurate but I am willing to learn otherwise. Your condescending tone is unwarranted and un-Christian. The sources of the issues proposed so far on this page have been very anti-Mormon sources. But I wonder, since your scathing remarks would suggest that I’m too lazy to read your CCC, have you ever read the Book of Mormon? How much time have you spent on the FARMS site or any other sites in defense of Mormon beliefs? or do you just hang around hateful lurid sites that oppose Mormon teachings?

I have not read the BoM, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute has been very helpful though I take it with a grain of salt. Rearranging the sentence order in a quote and changing the meaning 180 from the original is not trustworthy, now all quotes have to be double checked and put in context. I have also read my fair share of hateful, lurid anti-Mormon sites, what I haven’t done is use their material or provide links to their sites on discussion boards. It can’t take more than two minutes of reading a site to get the gist of what they’re doing. It shouldn’t be hard to recognize that using such sites damages one credibility and at the very least requires double checking.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not believe Catholics ever taught the Papacy could only be held by impeccable folks so when I bring up Popes who are guilty IMO of much worse sex “crimes” than Joseph Smith…

You believe an immoral leader is a sign of apostasy. Yet the sex crimes of Joseph Smith are OK with you. In addition to his false claims about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham it is clear the man cannot be trusted. Yet when he claims apostolic succession resumes with him, you believe him. A very low standard indeed.

 

[Jerusha]

I have also read my fair share of hateful, lurid anti-Mormon sites, what I haven’t done is use their material or provide links to their sites on discussion boards. It can’t take more than two minutes of reading a site to get the gist of what they’re doing. It shouldn’t be hard to recognize that using such sites damages one credibility and at the very least requires double checking.

I suspect that some of the accusations are related to my use of Thomas Sharp’s newspaper articles several pages ago. I was fully expecting Mr. Nosser to directly attack Mr. Sharp. Instead, he attacked me for having linked to the articles. My planned response was that Mr. Sharp was hot-headed, and claims were probably exaggerated, and all information had not been double-checked. Those who attacked the jail and murdered JS and Hyrum believed those accusations, many of which were later substantiated. Those who killed Joseph and Hyrum blamed them for all acts supposedly committed by Mormons. Frustration was at a fever pitch, because the leading Mormons refused to weed out the evil-doers from among them. Probably because of their own sins.

Mr. Nosser screams “Anti-Mormon propaganda!” while, at the same time, attacking Catholicism. Not surprising. One of their strategies for converting Catholics is to mercilessly attack Catholicism, ignoring the same, and worse faults in Mormonism, or even building a lying caricature of Catholicism.

They condemn any non-Mormon who has taken a good look at Mormonism and said “Not for me.”

 

[Stephen168]

Mr. Nosser screams “Anti-Mormon propaganda!” while, at the same time, attacking Catholicism. Not surprising. One of their strategies for converting Catholics is to mercilessly attack Catholicism, ignoring the same, and worse faults in Mormonism, or even building a lying caricature of Catholicism.

True and in keeping with the subject of the thread, they build a caricature of Mormonism and Joseph Smith.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Questions about the CCC. Who is being quoted (I assume the Pope?). What is the part that is not quoted. Is it an explanation of the part that is quoted and if so, is the explanation considered infallible?

This is quite a complicated document. There are articles where are not cross referenced, there are statements which are not quoted and there are clarifications to the otherwise obvious statements.

I have read and find nothing to refute my understanding of Catholics and their religion. If you believe what you said, then it is an understanding that is not supported by the CCC as I understand them. Since the articles are numbered, perhaps you can tell me which one I’m missing that would clear this all up for me.

The referenced footnotes site who, or what (another document) is being quoted. To a newcomer to Catholic documents it can appear complicated, but if you spend the time reading, including the footnotes, and then going to what is referenced, it is thorough.

The CCC condenses all that is taught and believed. Every topic has volumes written about it, and so if particular topics strike you as interesting, you can delve even deeper. The ocean of Catholicism is deep. You could spend a lifetime in its depth.

Outside of the quotes, the “person” speaking, is the Magesterium, The Magesterium is a council of Bishops who are considered by us to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and are infallible when teaching about faith and morals.

Those of us came from Mormonism have experienced those moments where you realize you aren’t understanding a Catholic teaching because the Mormon ideas that are being held onto get in the way. As a Catholic, that can be maddening! But it is who we are, and who you are as well.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Except of course when one does believe that the original person meant what he said, but that it doesn’t mean what the person unfamiliar with the theological/ecclesiological context thinks it means.

Except of course that isn’t good. Our point is merely that you misunderstand Catholic teaching on the matter, and that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has already been specifically cited in this thread to demonstrate that the Catholic Church officially teaches that while the normative/“ordinary” way of salvation is receiving the sacraments of Christ’s Church, we also believe in “invincible ignorance” and “baptism of desire”, which is up to God, who, in His infinite knowledge, wisdom, mercy, and justice can determine if someone would have accepted the fulness of the Gospel if they did not have the opportunity to do so in this life, through no fault of their own. No, this does not apparently go to all non-Catholics throughout all time (complete misunderstanding of the belief). Since we humans have no way of knowing, we follow Christ’s command of baptizing all and bringing them to His Church.

Now you may carry on.

Thank you. The reason I want to get off this topic is because it’s not the OPs topic and you and I read the same thing and come away with completely different understandings. Quite similar to our understandings of the Bible, only in this thread you have introduced a new item that we disagree on the meaning being the CCC.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The referenced footnotes site who, or what (another document) is being quoted. To a newcomer to Catholic documents it can appear complicated, but if you spend the time reading, including the footnotes, and then going to what is referenced, it is thorough.

The CCC condenses all that is taught and believed. Every topic has volumes written about it, and so if particular topics strike you as interesting, you can delve even deeper. The ocean of Catholicism is deep. You could spend a lifetime in its depth.

Outside of the quotes, the “person” speaking, is the Magesterium, The Magesterium is a council of Bishops who are considered by us to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and are infallible when teaching about faith and morals.

Those of us came from Mormonism have experienced those moments where you realize you aren’t understanding a Catholic teaching because the Mormon ideas that are being held onto get in the way. As a Catholic, that can be maddening! But it is who we are, and who you are as well.

It is likewise frustrating when you realize that you aren’t understanding LDS teachings because Catholic ideas that are being held onto get in the way. As a Mormon, that can be maddening! Just couldn’t help myself. I had to say it.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The referenced footnotes site who, or what (another document) is being quoted. To a newcomer to Catholic documents it can appear complicated, but if you spend the time reading, including the footnotes, and then going to what is referenced, it is thorough.

The CCC condenses all that is taught and believed. Every topic has volumes written about it, and so if particular topics strike you as interesting, you can delve even deeper. The ocean of Catholicism is deep. You could spend a lifetime in its depth.

Outside of the quotes, the “person” speaking, is the Magesterium, The Magesterium is a council of Bishops who are considered by us to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and are infallible when teaching about faith and morals.

Those of us came from Mormonism have experienced those moments where you realize you aren’t understanding a Catholic teaching because the Mormon ideas that are being held onto get in the way. As a Catholic, that can be maddening! But it is who we are, and who you are as well.

However, I do thank you for your clarifications on the footnotes. There is a lot of history. It must be quite difficult to keep all the ends connected.

 

[BrotherofJared]

You said he did not do anything illegal…You are wrong.

It is the lies of Joseph Smith that mean to me that he is not prophet. The Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham, both Mormon scripture, and not what Joseph Smith said they were.
Science has proven him wrong.

I did not mean it absolutely. I said marrying a 14 year old girl was legal. It is not the same thing as saying that he did nothing illegal ever in his whole life. He kept a commandment of God and in so doing broke commandments of men.

Science has not proven him wrong. Science has satisfied you that he is wrong, but Science is not the end nor the final answer. There is a higher source. You know science has also proven that Adam and Eve are not our first parents. They have proven that God makes mistakes in the sex of his children. How much science do you want to believe?

 

[BrotherofJared]

One of the confusions here is understanding, or lack thereof, of ‘fulfill’.

It doesn’t mean acknowledge, it includes a conclusion. Thus you then have Jesus put the period on the end of the sentence of OT prophecy.

If he was just going to acknowledge that Judaism as known was to continue as practiced, there would be no need to fulfill a prophecy, much less introduce anything new.

That’s your understanding of fulfill, which sounds a lot like destroy, as in to end or as in conclude or as in finished. There are prophecies still in the Old Testament that have yet to be fulfilled, so He couldn’t have been talking about ending them.

 

[Stephen168]

I did not mean it absolutely. I said marrying a 14 year old girl was legal. It is not the same thing as saying that he did nothing illegal ever in his whole life. He kept a commandment of God and in so doing broke commandments of men.

Polygamy was never the teaching of Jesus Christ. In Christian culture, laws were consistent with the teachings of Christ. Joseph Smith broke the laws of Christ and men.
Pearl of Great Price:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

Science has not proven him wrong. Science has satisfied you that he is wrong, but Science is not the end nor the final answer. There is a higher source. … How much science do you want to believe?

Until the 1980s, the Mormon Church taught the claim of Joseph Smith as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price. It became so clear that science had proven him wrong that the Mormon Church has turned their back on his claim, so no longer teach it.

Simon Southerton was a Mormon Bishop and plant geneticist. After hearing of the work of Thomas Murphy, a Mormon anthropologist, on mitochondrial DNA, Southerton published his book Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Both of these men knew the teaching of the Mormon Church and its consistency with the claim of Joseph Smith. Because science proved the Book of Mormon to be false, Southerton resigned as Bishop and left the Mormon Church.

Lets review how a Mormon, who claims to know the history of the Church deals with it.

TOmNossor:

Long before DNA was an issue in the BOM, I thought the BOM spoke of a group of folks who populated all of North and South America. When I read Brant Gardner’s work (long before he published his books BTW) I came to realize that he didn’t believe that and I found his reasons compelling. I CHANGED my view. So when DNA came up I relied upon Simon Southerton’s statement that if the BOM was what I thought it was his DNA arguments didn’t impact it. Dr. Southerton invited me to re-re-examine the BOM so I could decide that it must be what he claimed it to be and then I could lose my faith just like he did (and become an Atheist of course). I was not particularly interested in following his prescription and I didn’t.

To summarize: A Mormon apologist with an MA in anthropology writes before Southerton publishes. His writings are consistent with the new teaching of the Mormon Church. The new teaching being that the Book of Mormon could not be the story of the source of all the inhabitants, so it becomes the story of some of the inhabitants.

Mormons, including Tom, fall in line with the new teaching; forgetting that the new teaching is not Joseph Smith’s teaching or the teaching of the Mormon Church just a few years before. Mormons have been inoculated against the growing body of science against the Book of Mormon.

What is not true about Tom’s story is that DNA is not the only scientific evidence against the claim of Joseph Smith. The source of the inhabitants was already known to be Asia well before DNA. To suggest that the Mormon Church had never taught the claim of Joseph Smith, is not true.

Yes, science has proven that the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. He was wrong at the least, and a lied at the most. Neither are the signs of a prophet.

 

[Chris-WA]

Mormonism started as a Trinitarian religion but in 1844 Joseph Smith led his people into apostasy with his rejection of the trinity and teaching that God was once a man like us.

Very true. Joseph Smith started out believing in the same godhead believed by the evangelical protestants of his time and environment. During his time as leader of the Mormon church, Joseph drastically morphed his view of the godhead. This is evidenced by his writings. A chronological examination of his writings clearly shows that as time went on he went from believing that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit were one God to believing that they were three separate beings. His earliest writings support the one-God view–the Book of Mormon and his earliest written account of the First Vision.

The Book of Mormon over and over teaches that God is one God, specifically that Jesus and the Father are the very same being. In regards to the First Vision, Joseph didn’t write down an account until 12 years after it happened (which is very curious in itself), but in that 1832 account Joseph only mentions being visited by a single personage, not two as in the current official account found in LDS scripture. There are multiple accounts of the First Vision, but if you focus on the ones that were either written by Joseph himself or dictated directly to his scribes, the story becomes more and more miraculous and physical. The 1843 account is far different than the 1832 account, where he now says he is visited by both Jesus and God the Father. This fits with the Book of Abraham which has come later than the BoM and the 1832 account of the First Vision, and teaches the same multiplicity of Gods.

It’s clear Joseph greatly changed his view of the godhead. The same pattern of embellishment over time is also present in the other foundational visions of the LDS church–the restoration of the priesthood, the 3 and 8 witnesses to the BoM, and the golden plate story. They start out simple and later become much more miraculous and physical.

 

[vsedriver]

I’m just going to cut to the wick really fast here. Was Jesus once a man like us? Could he die? Did he die? Was he subject to sin and temptation, just like us? Is He not God? I propose that Jesus was born like us, via a mortal mother. He grew up from childhood to man hood without knowing everything at the beginning, just like us. He was tempted just like us, He died a mortal death, just like we will. If all these are true and Jesus is God, then I guess Joseph Smith wasn’t wrong about God being once a man just like us… (of course, the difference is, he was perfect and didn’t sin and had power over death, which we don’t, but to the extent of growing from grace to grace, living in the flesh being subject to all temptation, He was just like us).

no he was not just like us. You have a human body and soul. A human nature. Jesus Christ also had a human body and soul and a human nature. But he also had a divine nature. He always had a divine nature which is eternal with the Father and the Spirit.

You will never have a divine nature, therefore Jesus was not just like us in all things.

 

[JaminB123]

This doesn’t change my position. I’m saying it wasn’t illegal to marry a 14 year-old and your saying it was illegal to have more than one wife. It was certainly an interesting time in Joseph’s life, but what was required of God would override anything the government put in place or anything judgement we might pass on him now.

The conditions of the time required secrecy and denial. I don’t have a problem with that. It doesn’t bother me that he married two 14 year-old girls. It doesn’t bother me that he married other men’s wives.

What was required of God would override anything the government put in place? That seems contrary to the Mormon 12th Article of Faith. (“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”) The Article of Faith seems clear and unequivocal–true integrity would mean following it.

The conditions of the time required denial (i.e., lying )? That seems very contrary to the 10 commandments (“bearing false witness”)

It doesn’t bother you that JS married 14-year-old girls? It doesn’t bother you that he married other men’s wives? It doesn’t bother you that he broke the laws of the land in violation of your own church’s principles? It doesn’t bother you that JS broke the laws of God by repeatedly bearing false witness? I propose that these things should bother us. These things seem like telltale signs of a false prophets, much like the false prophets we were warned about in the New Testament.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 17:5

Reflecting on the OP, I suppose Mormon come in three breeds: those who don’t know of JS’s true history, those who do but don’t care, and those who (like me) discovered JS’s true nature and fled to mere Christianity. Our leaders sin as well, but when they do, we call their sin sin and don’t (or shouldn’t) defend it and call it good, holy, justified, or commanded by God.

 

[vsedriver]

BrotherofJared is being “corrected” because he thought that Catholic taught the unbaptized infant would be in hell (or hell that was still hell but called Limbo). This doctrine (teaching) CHANGED. If you can show me anyone from before the 19th century (other than those condemned as Pelagian) who claimed that the unbaptized infant could be in heaven, I will be surprised. I think there is ZERO evidence for this.

this was never, ever a doctrine or a teaching of the Church. Many theologians discussed the fate of the unbaptized baby. The only thing the church has taught is that we really don’t know and trust in the mercy of God.

So it was taught as a theory but never dogmatically defined as doctrine.