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

[Marie5890]

Of course-- it’s the devil’s fault they are leaving the church. Anytime somebody leaves it’s because there is something wrong with them, right? There’s no chance that these people found out the types of things we’ve been talking about in this thread and felt duped? You should look up some of their stories on Youtube and listen for yourself. You know how the church often treats them when they leave? Since there is no possible way there could ever be anything wrong with the church’s claims, it’s often assumed that the ex-member must be involved in some serious sin like adultery.

Reminds me of blaming the rape victim for having been raped.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Yes, Joseph Smith and Mormonism had the truth of the triune God but Joseph Smith led them into apostasy.

Where do you get this information from? Where has Joseph Smith ever indicated this “was” a truth and then apostatized?

 

[Stephen168]

Again, I encourage the CHANGE in doctrine, but if ECs are infallible in letter, the Catholic Church is false because ECs have contradicted eachother.

While Ecumenical Councils have never contradicted each other, your standard of changing dogma as a sign of a false church is reasonable…

I am quite certain that understanding of the CoJCoLDS concerning God evolved during Joseph Smith’s life. I find it quite possible that Joseph’s understanding evolved.

Changing from one God to two Gods, to multiple Gods is a huge change in dogma not an evolution.

Anyway, Joseph Smith was as close to an orthodox Trinitarian before his visions and … as were any of his neighbors.

The Book of Mormon (1830) was clearly Trinitarian, which he presented after his visions. His first vision was consistent with being a trinitarian.

So, while there are some other responses given thousands of times by LDS to what you write, in broad strokes, I admit that LDS thought has developed and changed.

Yet, you remain a member of a religion which fails your test of truth.

If you need a fixed never changing theology, then do not become a LDS!

Yes, I will remain Catholic because our dogma does not change, which reason would dictate.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Of course-- it’s the devil’s fault they are leaving the church. Anytime somebody leaves it’s because there is something wrong with them, right? There’s no chance that these people found out the types of things we’ve been talking about in this thread and felt duped? You should look up some of their stories on Youtube and listen for yourself. You know how the church often treats them when they leave? Since there is no possible way there could ever be anything wrong with the church’s claims, it’s often assumed that the ex-member must be involved in some serious sin like adultery.

I believe you took that one a little too far. No where in my statement did I make any allusion to serious sin or there being something wrong with the person. But to clarify, the adversary to all good “the devil,” is cunning. The problem isn’t sin or the individual, it is what the world presents as evidence to refute the weak facts of the Gospel. It, the evidence, will be so convincing as to deceive the very elect.

The “things you’ve been talking about” are the exact evidence I am referring to. Joseph Smith saw two personages and both were God. One the Father and the other the Son. An angel showed Joseph where he buried his records that God commanded him to keep and in translating these records, Joseph fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah that there will be two sticks, one for Ephraim and one for Judah.

There will be more opposition, not less, as we approach the second coming of the Lord. The questions that started this thread are moot. The actions of Joseph Smith, though little known, are of no consequence to the truth of the Gospel. You have scholars leaving the church. We have scholars that aren’t leaving the church. No one in this church is getting rich or accumulating power or pushing personal agendas by remaining a faithful member. Joseph certainly wasn’t and if he was, the church would have ended when he was killed. That didn’t happen.

To answer the OPs question, many of us who remain know all of those things about Joseph Smith. It makes no difference. He restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ in it’s fullness. If you want to pick apart the beliefs, then that would be the subject of another topic, I think.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Once again, no, the Church has never taught that. Here’s a link:

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/someone-told-me-that-if-a-baby-dies-before-being-baptized-the-baby-goes-to-hell-is-this-true-2

There’s a catch. Let’s get back to the topic of this thread. Now, will you answer my questions regarding Mormons? I posted those questions three times. I’d be happy to copy and paste again, if you need it.

You know… It would really help if we knew who you were replying too.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Catholics actually do know Catholic teaching and history. When a Catholic attempts to explain Catholic teaching to you it is best to believe them; and if you have doubts don’t run to any website that agrees with you and post a link to it.

Or maybe just stick with defending Mormonism and stir away from trying to teach Catholicism to Catholics.

Is the Pope Catholic? I don’t know why, when I’m quoting a Pope, a Catholic will actually say that we don’t believe that, we’ve never taught it… Ok. I’m fine with that.

The fact is though that there has always been a concern about baptism of children and baptism by proper authority in order to enter heaven, since Jesus did say, in the New Testament, that one cannot enter heaven without baptism. The fact that you are refuting these issues now only tells me that you’re standing on shifting ground.

 

[BrotherofJared]

But you could go to the trouble to read a hate filled anti-Catholic site

Since you can’t be bothered with researching teachings directly from the church (reading hateful lurid sites is more appealing to you?) here’s a link to the relevant CCC pages it will take some effort on your part as you will have to scroll down the page about halfway, hopefully it will not too much trouble.

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?

Don’t bother answering. The answers are not as important as your attitude which you’ve already exposed. I am here by invitation only. My understanding about Catholics is limited. I am willing to be corrected, but it is difficult when there is sufficient material that indicates otherwise, especially when I’m quoting Catholics that provide that material (mind you, I quoted the Pope, not the assumptions and findings of that web site. I quoted it word for word with references to the quote which I followed up and verified on Catholic sites.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Is the Pope Catholic? I don’t know why, when I’m quoting a Pope, a Catholic will actually say that we don’t believe that, we’ve never taught it… Ok. I’m fine with that.

Let me just say, it is very amusing to me for a Mormon to post the above. I’m sure others here will understand what I’m saying.

What I see here is not a denial of Catholic dogma, but of a misrepresentation of what Catholic officials/documents/etc are stating, within a Catholic context (this being the key issue).

 

[LivingWaters7]

The CoJCoLDS places very little emphasis upon what form of Trinity our members embrace. We have seldom erred in the way the Catholic Church did IMO when it cut off significant of their former brothers and sisters in Christ due to a DEVELOPED definition of doctrine. Remember Athanasius after Nicea called some folks now considered Semi-Arians his brothers in Christ. Today these Semi-Arians are usually called Arians and condemned as outside the faith. This is the error the CoJCoLDS usually avoids.

Actually, the LDS church does place emphasis on what form of the “Trinity” its members embrace. It is repeatedly discussed how the true doctrine regarding the nature of God has been restored, and that this true doctrine can be seen in the First Vision (at last version of it), even though when we look at LDS history it is clear that the doctrine about God evolved a number of times to its present constitution. The LDS church under no circumstances would entertain the orthodox doctrine on the nature of God, and we see in various venues the extolling of the true theology, and the rejection of the orthodox view (whether in books, magazines, manuals, or General Conference talks).

 

[BrotherofJared]

But you could go to the trouble to read a hate filled anti-Catholic site

Since you can’t be bothered with researching teachings directly from the church (reading hateful lurid sites is more appealing to you?) here’s a link to the relevant CCC pages it will take some effort on your part as you will have to scroll down the page about halfway, hopefully it will not too much trouble.

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.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Let me just say, it is very amusing to me for a Mormon to post the above. I’m sure others here will understand what I’m saying.

What I see here is not a denial of Catholic dogma, but of a misrepresentation of what Catholic officials/documents/etc are stating, within a Catholic context (this being the key issue).

Amusing indeed. I was thinking exactly the same thing, so by referring to either one of our authorities there is no way to “know” we’re right. You cannot prove anything by me and I apparently cannot prove anything by you.

How, then, would you propose that we resolve the issues?

 

[Catholic_farmer]

You know… It would really help if we knew who you were replying too.

I have been addressing any Mormon willing to wade into the questions I have asked. I don’t think anyone is willing, however, and that is very telling about the gaping holes in your theology.

At this point, it is quite clear both of you are avoiding answering them. This thread is supposed to be about your religion, yet, you continually try to distract us by asking the same questions about Catholicism over and over again. If it’s too hard to defend your faith in regard to these questions, simply say so. We all have our our limitations.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Amusing indeed. I was thinking exactly the same thing, so by referring to either one of our authorities there is no way to “know” we’re right. You cannot prove anything by me and I apparently cannot prove anything by you.

How, then, would you propose that we resolve the issues?

I propose that we understand the context that the leaders speak in, including the theological worldview and framework. Merely copy and pasting words isn’t helpful if the context isn’t understood.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I was just reading though this thread with the intention to lurk, but I couldn’t pass this one by. So, is was legal for Joseph Smith to marry this 14-year-old when he was already married? I’m not an expert, but pretty darn sure bigamy was illegal even back then.

Some quick research reveals this:

“Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred.”
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

That’s from 1833 in a state where JS was practicing polygamy, no? What is polygamy if not multiple counts of bigamy? Sounds illegal to me. Surely Joseph knew this and it’s probably why he lied about it and publicly denied it for so long. The illegality and unwholesomeness of polygamy was a large part of why Mormons were chased from state to state… and why they were denied statehood in Utah. Contrary to popular Mormon opinion, the evidence indicates that Mormon did continue to practice this illegal behavior even after the 1890 decree. So much for obeying the laws of the land!

In addition to the illegality of polygamy, let’s not use the “God commanded polygamy in the Old Testament” defense I’ve heard often from Mormons. God did NOT command polygamy in the OT (cite it if you can prove me wrong). Just because something is described in the OT doesn’t mean it is prescribed by God. Perhaps tolerated for a time just as divorce was because of the hardness of their hearts, but toleration is hardly a command. This argument does not hold.

Also, let’s not ignore that the practice of polyandry (e.g., Joseph marrying women already married to living men) is absolutely not prescribed or even described in the OT (cite if you can prove me wrong). The OT argument especially doesn’t hold in this case.

When I was Mormon, I had no idea about the 14-year old, the polyandry, the illegality, etc. The Mormon relatives I have didn’t know about it either until I pointed it out to them. The polygamy is very sanitized and whitewashed in Mormon circles in my experience.

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. I don’t need it spelled out to me in a biblical chapter and verse to know that God (at least) condoned plural marriages. God specifically told David that he gave him his wives and would have given him more. That seems like condoning the practice to me. In addition, in Duet 25:5-6, opens the door for polygamy. You can argue this anyway you want. But polygamy was practiced among the Jews and commanded by God (assuming the law was given by Moses which was given by God). This practice was applied in the marriage between Ruth and Boaz and was specifically brought to Jesus’ attention suggesting the polyandry’ness of it (which is just disgusting in our terms of thinking but apparently not to God).

 

[Stephen168]

Is the Pope Catholic? I don’t know why, when I’m quoting a Pope, a Catholic will actually say that we don’t believe that, we’ve never taught it… Ok. I’m fine with that.

It depends on what you are quoting. Pope John Paul II once said, lets go skiing, it’ll be fun, but at the time I was never taught that and I don’t believe skiing is fun. He also said, he did not have the authority to allow women to be Priests. Now, I was taught that women could not be Priests.

So it if you quoting a Papal letter to some 12th century ruler, we may or may not have been taught that and it probably isn’t Catholic teaching.

The Pope said he didn’t have the authority because he has the keys and is responsible in maintaining the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. He is not free to make stuff up like the Mormon President.

The fact is though that there has always been a concern about baptism of children and baptism by proper authority in order to enter heaven, since Jesus did say, in the New Testament, that one cannot enter heaven without baptism. The fact that you are refuting these issues now only tells me that you’re standing on shifting ground.

No, there has never been a concern about baptizing children by proper authority in order to enter heaven. While Jesus said we should be baptized with water, he also told an unbaptized man, that he would see him in heaven. Paul taught that baptism was the new circumcision which the Jews do at 8 days old. And he said it removes the sin of Adam (original sin.) So there was never any desire to keep children from baptism. In fact it would seen cruel to keep them away. I don’t know of any restriction in the New Testament which says authority is required.

I’m refuting them because you are wrong and you don’t understand Catholic teaching or authority. Dialogue is great, but don’t tell me I’m wrong then link to some Catholic hate site to try, and prove you are right.

 

[TOmNossor]

I have been addressing any Mormon willing to wade into the questions I have asked. I don’t think anyone is willing, however, and that is very telling about the gaping holes in your theology.

At this point, it is quite clear both of you are avoiding answering them. This thread is supposed to be about your religion, yet, you continually try to distract us by asking the same questions about Catholicism over and over again. If it’s too hard to defend your faith in regard to these questions, simply say so. We all have our our limitations.
I am not sure I have dealt with these issues with you before.
What “gapping hole” singular is most troubling to you?
If you want to learn about LDS thought a Catholic board is a POOR place, but since I do not recall answering a LDS question for you what is most pressing on your mind.

BTW, do you believe Father Joe was honest? Informed? Or?
He claimed that a condemnation of Limbo as a third place was advocating unbaptized babies go to heaven, but it was advocating that unbaptized babies go to hell.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

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. .

Therefore Joseph Smith was a criminal.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I propose that we understand the context that the leaders speak in, including the theological worldview and framework. Merely copy and pasting words isn’t helpful if the context isn’t understood.

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.

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.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Therefore Joseph Smith was a criminal.

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

 

[BrotherofJared]

I have been addressing any Mormon willing to wade into the questions I have asked. I don’t think anyone is willing, however, and that is very telling about the gaping holes in your theology.

At this point, it is quite clear both of you are avoiding answering them. This thread is supposed to be about your religion, yet, you continually try to distract us by asking the same questions about Catholicism over and over again. If it’s too hard to defend your faith in regard to these questions, simply say so. We all have our our limitations.

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.