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

[BrotherofJared]

Polygamy was never the teaching of Jesus Christ.

I disagree with you.

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.

I don’t know where you go the idea that we don’t teach it. The Lamanites have to be buried somewhere in the midst of all the remaining people here in the america’s.

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.

You conveniently exclude the part about science foibles and then grab this evidence from a scientist who fronts those same foibles. i.e. there was no Adam and Eve, Darwin was correct, we are accidents without a creator, sexual attraction or identity is based on genes, etc.

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.

And again, I disagree. It would be great if all scientists could be purely objective in their work, but the plain fact is, they are not. Mormon scientists tend to see things from a Mormon point of view, while scientists who are diametrically opposed to Mormon views will discard points that would give any credence to Mormon claims. You use a scientist that both opposes Mormonism and Christianity, but since in this instance he agrees with you, it’s okay. I would rather believe what God told me is true than believe a scientist any day. Truth always trumps science.

 

[BrotherofJared]

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.

Nice rhetoric. Abraham lied. Israel had more than one wife. Mary was 13 when she conceived Jesus Christ. We marry other mens wives all the time. It was Levitical law among the Jews. Joseph didn’t lie about anything God called upon him to do.

 

[Stephen168]

I disagree with you.

You may disagree but you didn’t provide any proof. Like a quote from Jesus Christ supporting your claim. Polygamy was never the teaching of Jesus Christ.

I don’t know where you go the idea that we don’t teach it. The Lamanites have to be buried somewhere in the midst of all the remaining people here in the america’s

You just proved that the Mormon Church no longer teaches it. If they did, you would have said all the American Indians are Lamanites, but you didn’t. You gave us the new teaching that the Lamanites are “in the midst of the” American Indians.

You conveniently exclude the part about science foibles and then grab this evidence from a scientist who fronts those same foibles.

I found two Mormon scientists who found that science proves the Book of Mormon to not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. Because they know that Joseph Smith lied, one is no longer Mormon.

And again, I disagree. It would be great if all scientists could be purely objective in their work, but the plain fact is, they are not. Mormon scientists tend to see things from a Mormon point of view, while scientists who are diametrically opposed to Mormon views will discard points that would give any credence to Mormon claims. You use a scientist that both opposes Mormonism and Christianity, but since in this instance he agrees with you, it’s okay.

Again, I used two Mormon scientist. They, every other scientist outside of Mormonism, and the Mormon Church know the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

I would rather believe what God told me is true than believe a scientist any day. Truth always trumps science.

Science is the truth and it is consistent with what God told me. If somebody told you otherwise, it was not God because it is not the truth.

 

[Chris-WA]

You have yet to show where in the OT polygyny is “authorized” or “condoned” by God, much less commanded. The law of Moses put limits and regulations on polygyny and its unfortunate consequences, but the law of Moses also puts limits and regulations on slavery.

Brother of Jared says God commanded polygamy in the Old Testament, but he never shows where. Because it’s not there. Only in LDS scripture do we see this (which was of course written after Joseph Smith had been practicing polygamy for some time).

In Genesis Chapter 16, because Sarah had been unable to conceive children to be heirs of Abraham, Sarah tells Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine to produce seed in Sarah’s place. Abraham does so, and almost immediately there is strife between Sarah and Hagar, so much so that Abraham tells Sarah to do whatever she wants with Hagar (hardly a way to treat your second wife if that what Hagar actually was). The result of this situation is a broken family that has lasted thousands of years up until the present day. So much for an argument for polygamy.

What’s missing here in Genesis is any indication that God commanded Abraham to do this in the first place. There is absolutely no mention of it. The only person we see doing the commanding is Sarah, so it seems clear that Sarah thought this bad idea up on her own and then convinced Abraham to do it.

Thousands of years later, it is Joseph Smith that claims God commanded Abraham to take Hagar as a plural wife in order to justify polygamy in the LDS church. But that’s not in the bible.

Now it is true that Moses permits polygamy in the Old Testament, but LDS do not understand the context of this “concession.” At the time, all the surrounding pagan nations practiced polygamy. It is a pagan practice. When Moses goes up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments, the Israelites lose patience (and faith) and construct a pagan golden calf to worship. (During their 400 years in Egypt the Israelites adopted pagan religious practices, of which the worship of cattle, sheep, and goats was one). When Moses comes back down the mountain and finds out that Israel had once again abandoned the one true God in favor of pagan gods, the Israelites are punished and put into a probationary period so to speak. The priesthood is stripped from every tribe but the Levites (thus the Levitical Priesthood) because they were the only ones to remain true to God. Thousands of other Israelites are slaughtered for their terrible transgression in worshipping the golden calf, and a lesser law is given that the tribes are able to handle during this probationary period. One of these laws allows polygamy. Since the Israelites seem so bent on being like the pagan nations surrounding them, Moses allows it, (and therefore the natural negative consequences). Also part of this lesser law was the constant sacrifice of animals in order to rid Israel of its addiction to the pagan practices of Egypt (they were forced to sacrifice the gods of Egypt), and divorce. These lesser laws were never intended to be permanent. Jesus Christ tells us in the New Testament what marriage was originally intended to be. Divorce and polygamy is not part of it as we see right away in the Christian Church. In the Old Testament, more than one wife seems to always spell trouble.

 

[Chris-WA]

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

What he is saying is that Joseph started out believing more in a Trinitarian godhead rather than what he taught later in his life (which is what the LDS church has taught ever since). The poster is saying that when Joseph started changing his view from Trinitarian to multiple gods he in effect was leading others further and further away from the truth (apostacy).

That Joseph originally believed in a more Trinitarian view of the Godhead is evidenced by the Book of Mormon and his 1832 First Vision account. As he changed over time to a godhead consisting of separate beings (Book of Abraham, 1843 account of the
First Vision, etc.) he went further into error.

Please view this video as it is an excellent source for understanding Joseph’s changing view of the godhead:

youtube.com/watch?v=3KpYoMGCqpE

 

[Chris-WA]

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.

That’s the 1843 account of the First Vision, and the one officially incorporated into LDS scripture. But this account is far different from Joseph’s earlier accounts. In his first written account by his own hand (1832) Joseph mentions nothing of seeing two separate gods. The same is true of his 1835 account dictated to his scribe. His 1843 account is given during a time when Joseph is in big trouble with the leadership of the church as many are doubting his credibility and calling him a fraud. They had discovered many of the things I mentioned in the first post of this thread, and they are not happy about it. His 1843 account is far more physical, detailed, and miraculous than his earlier accounts. It adds many things that he never said before, and certain things in it do not match the historical record. It appears that Joseph knew he was in big trouble and had to do something to re-solidify his position as a genuine prophet and leader of the church. So he dictates this very embellished account which is what you are quoting today. Unfortunately, it’s not the truth.

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.

That is a very naïve thing to say. If Joseph did the things I said he did, it has a heck of a lot to due with his credibility and the truth of the Mormon 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.

Actually, Joseph accumulated a heck of a lot of power doing what he did. He established a theocracy. He convinced people to invest in a scandalous bank deal. He used his power to convince vulnerable women to marry him. He made himself a general of his army. He ran for President of the United States. He had himself declared “King of the Earth.”

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.

Yes, and you can start your own thread on those things if you want. But this thread is about the real Joseph Smith, who the vast majority of LDS know nothing about. It’s purpose is to present these facts to them so they will at least take a deeper look than what they have been taught all of their lives.

 

[JaminB123]

Nice rhetoric. Abraham lied. Israel had more than one wife. Mary was 13 when she conceived Jesus Christ. We marry other mens wives all the time. It was Levitical law among the Jews. Joseph didn’t lie about anything God called upon him to do.

Abraham lied? There’s an argument otherwise I recently read… and also before the 10 commandments were given. I don’t see this Genesis incident as granting us permission to lie about our behavior. Just because JS feared the consequences of his illegal and scandelous behavior becoming public does not relieve him of responsibility to follow the 10 commandments.

Israel had more than one wife? By this, you mean some ancient Jews did, I assume. Again, just because polygamy is described does not mean God commanded it. Description of something in the OT does not automatically equal commandment from God. And the NT clearly sets forth monogamy; geniune Christian tradition affirms it.

Mary was 13 when she conceived Jesus? Perhaps. OK.

We marry other men’s wives all the time? If are referring to a divorce situation, God does not favor divorce (Jesus made this clear) and marrying a divorced woman is obviously heavily frowned upon in Catholic circles so I can’t embrace this argument if that’s your meaning. And marrying another man’s wife while that man is still alive and married to her? No, we don’t do that all the time. Barely anyone does. Polyandry is very rare across cultures and history. Abrahamic traditions universally condemn it.

It was Levitical law among the Jews? If you mean marrying a widow, ok. But if you are stretching that Levitical law commanded polygamy and certainly polyandry, that’s a leap.

Joseph didn’t lie about anything God called upon him to do? By Mormon teaching, God commanded JS to engage in polygamy/polyandry. And he did lie about it, publicly denying it repeatedly while he engaged in the practice many times over. So he absolutely DID lie about “what God commanded him to do” if we take the Mormon premise. I don’t follow your logic on this one at all.

As Christians, we must be wary of false prophets. I know if a man came to my home tomorrow, claiming what Joseph Smith claimed and behaving as he behaved, I would do everything I could to keep that man away from my wives and daughters. He’d be no more welcome in my home than Warren Jeffs, who, let’s face it, bears far more resemblance to Jospeh Smith than any modern mainstream LDS prophet. We were warned of false prophets for a reason.

Well, BrotherofJared, obviously we’re not going to reach common understanding of JS’s character. You see a true Prophet and view his aberrant behavior in the best possible light. I see a false Prophet and obivoulsy see his behavior in a negative light. But I admire that you are willing to engage on this forum and defend your views. While I have little respect for the founder of your faith, most Mormons I know are devout people trying to serve the God they understand as best they can. I trust you are among these good people and wish you the best.

 

[BrotherofJared]

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.

Yes. I believe I stated that he was different in that aspect. But he went from God spirit, born of a woman in the flesh, died on the cross. He was a man, in body, life, death and suffering. That sounds like a man to me. He only exercised his divine nature in the resurrection. All other things he did as a man.

But this is my religion. This supports Joseph Smiths statement that God was once like we are. We are born, He was born, we live and He lived, we feel pain and He felt pain, we are tempted and He was tempted, we die and He died. Admittedly, the pressure of all mankind’s sins is far greater than any human could bare, nonetheless; he overcame the sins as a man. He did nothing more than he has asked of us. We could not resurrect ourselves, he could and that was the difference between us. That was his divine nature. We could not be resurrected without him and so now that he finished his mission and over came the crave, He resurrected and will live forever and we will be resurrected and live forever. As God once was, we are now. And has as God is, we may become. It is simple and it is supported in the New Testament. Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

 

[vsedriver]

Yes. I believe I stated that he was different in that aspect. But he went from God spirit, born of a woman in the flesh, died on the cross. He was a man, in body, life, death and suffering. That sounds like a man to me. He only exercised his divine nature in the resurrection. All other things he did as a man.

 

[BrotherofJared]

That’s the 1843 account of the First Vision, and the one officially incorporated into LDS scripture. But this account is far different from Joseph’s earlier accounts. In his first written account by his own hand (1832) Joseph mentions nothing of seeing two separate gods. The same is true of his 1835 account dictated to his scribe. His 1843 account is given during a time when Joseph is in big trouble with the leadership of the church as many are doubting his credibility and calling him a fraud. They had discovered many of the things I mentioned in the first post of this thread, and they are not happy about it. His 1843 account is far more physical, detailed, and miraculous than his earlier accounts. It adds many things that he never said before, and certain things in it do not match the historical record. It appears that Joseph knew he was in big trouble and had to do something to re-solidify his position as a genuine prophet and leader of the church. So he dictates this very embellished account which is what you are quoting today. Unfortunately, it’s not the truth.

Well, you read very differently than I do. In the first vision, Joseph never said how many people where there. You make the assumption, wrongly, that because he only specified what Jesus Christ said, that Jesus was the only one there. In the second account, I specifically see that there are two personages mentioned and in the third account, again I see the same two personages. But if you were there, then I would suspect that maybe there was only one person there, but you weren’t, Joseph was. All three of his accounts are aligned as far as I can tell.

As for church leadership getting all up tight about he goings on, you are referring to people who were no longer in the church and chose to take matters into their own hands. If I was to take into consideration the circumstances of these individuals, at the time I would think they were making it up. They were obviously upset. Some of it was true, but the conjecture went way overboard. Your suggestion that he needed to re-solidify his position doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t it have been safer to go with the norms of the day instead of drifting farther way as you are suggesting? Wouldn’t suddenly claiming that there were 2 personages in that vision when originally he taught there there was only one undermine his position even further? That logic doesn’t make sense to me at all. I would suggest that he never changed his teaching about that vision and that it had always been two personages or at the very least, that he never taught a triune godhead.

All of your evidence to prove Joseph taught the trinity, including this one, weak as they are; are true just as they are written. Joseph talked with Jesus Christ in the first vision, His Father was also there, Joseph just didn’t mention Him. In the second he said there was two personages, he just didn’t identify them individually. In the third he identified them

A father cannot begotten himself (that is a mystery). Joseph cleared up the mystery. There is no triune god.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Where is it that we can see that polygamy was a teaching of Jesus Christ?

 

[BrotherofJared]

It’s purpose is to present these facts to them so they will at least take a deeper look than what they have been taught all of their lives.

Yes. I can see how deeply you looked into these things.

I once had a bout with some of these issues. I don’t even remember what the issue was about. What I do remember is that I felt I had been intentionally deceived. I thought there was some kind of cover up and the church was hiding dirty secrets from the world and if that was true then the church couldn’t possibly be true.

After some thought, I realized that no one in this church knows me. No one was hiding anything on purpose. In fact, it’s not hidden. Everyone knows about it, or at least a ton of dissenters from the church know about it. So the idea of me being deceived simply because I didn’t know about it before means that I just wasn’t educated on the matter and I undertook to educate myself. I have spent years scouring the internet and reading both sides of the story. I’m a Mormon and as such, I tend to lean towards what Mormon’s teach. If any LDS person or scholar can make a reasonable claim to the possibility that it was right and good, then I’ll accept that claim. To date, there has not been any dirty dark secrets that have been kept from the general LDS population. Admittedly, there are somethings that the general population don’t know, but I’m okay with that. It’ll all come out in time. Maybe, just maybe there’ll be some evidence that will prove the church is false, but until then I see no reason to change. The church teaches today to follow Jesus Christ, to be charitable and strive to obey all of God’s commandments. I don’t have a problem with baptism. I’m alright with the priesthood. Having to live a certain way to get into the temple marriage and covenants to follow god are all alright with me. I don’t see where any of that is going to be a damning condition that will prevent me from entering heaven. To me, you’re arguments and facts are like sounding brass or tingling cymbals. Attacking the character of Joseph Smith when his actions are aligned with other men of God, then you might as well attack Abraham, Issac and Jacob, Moses and Mary (after all, she did get pregnant out of wedlock). All these are pillars in God’s kingdom, yet had circumstances that were less than honorable. I will state again. I have no problem with Joseph Smith’s character or polygamy. I believe there was and is a purpose in it.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Brother of Jared says God commanded polygamy in the Old Testament, but he never shows where. Because it’s not there. Only in LDS scripture do we see this (which was of course written after Joseph Smith had been practicing polygamy for some time).

In Genesis Chapter 16, because Sarah had been unable to conceive children to be heirs of Abraham, Sarah tells Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine to produce seed in Sarah’s place. Abraham does so, and almost immediately there is strife between Sarah and Hagar, so much so that Abraham tells Sarah to do whatever she wants with Hagar (hardly a way to treat your second wife if that what Hagar actually was). The result of this situation is a broken family that has lasted thousands of years up until the present day. So much for an argument for polygamy.

What’s missing here in Genesis is any indication that God commanded Abraham to do this in the first place. There is absolutely no mention of it. The only person we see doing the commanding is Sarah, so it seems clear that Sarah thought this bad idea up on her own and then convinced Abraham to do it.

Thousands of years later, it is Joseph Smith that claims God commanded Abraham to take Hagar as a plural wife in order to justify polygamy in the LDS church. But that’s not in the bible.

Now it is true that Moses permits polygamy in the Old Testament, but LDS do not understand the context of this “concession.” At the time, all the surrounding pagan nations practiced polygamy. It is a pagan practice. When Moses goes up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments, the Israelites lose patience (and faith) and construct a pagan golden calf to worship. (During their 400 years in Egypt the Israelites adopted pagan religious practices, of which the worship of cattle, sheep, and goats was one). When Moses comes back down the mountain and finds out that Israel had once again abandoned the one true God in favor of pagan gods, the Israelites are punished and put into a probationary period so to speak. The priesthood is stripped from every tribe but the Levites (thus the Levitical Priesthood) because they were the only ones to remain true to God. Thousands of other Israelites are slaughtered for their terrible transgression in worshipping the golden calf, and a lesser law is given that the tribes are able to handle during this probationary period. One of these laws allows polygamy. Since the Israelites seem so bent on being like the pagan nations surrounding them, Moses allows it, (and therefore the natural negative consequences). Also part of this lesser law was the constant sacrifice of animals in order to rid Israel of its addiction to the pagan practices of Egypt (they were forced to sacrifice the gods of Egypt), and divorce. These lesser laws were never intended to be permanent. Jesus Christ tells us in the New Testament what marriage was originally intended to be. Divorce and polygamy is not part of it as we see right away in the Christian Church. In the Old Testament, more than one wife seems to always spell trouble.

Well, you missed the story of Jacob who ended up with 2 wives and the handmaidens of both wives.

I did say where it says it in the Old Testament, Duet 25:5-6.

Since we have no idea what the higher law was, since Moses destroyed it, I don’t know how you can determine what the lesser law was. I can’t see that God would allow pagan practices just because the Israelites wanted their pagan practices. That seems counter to God’s teachings.

I’m not sure God commanded Abraham to take Hagar. I don’t think Joseph taught it. Sarah certainly did. But this is obviously a grievous sin and yet God instituted his entire plan through the seed of this sinful man, or maybe it wasn’t a sin. The issue at point here is Abraham had a concubine and he remained a prophet. How can to two go hand in hand if it was such a bad thing.

As far as the broken family, Sarah did a good thing for Hagar and for Abraham. Hagar abused that gift and flaunted her position as being the mother of Abraham’s heir. Of course there are other views of this situation, but there is no doubt an angel blessed Hagar and her offspring and told her to return to Sarah. God was well aware of this tryst and yet still honored Abraham.

 

[BrotherofJared]

If you knew that Joseph conned people out of their money by claiming he could find buried treasure for them by looking at seer stones in a hat, and that he used the exact same method to translate the Book of Mormon, would that bother you?

Nope. This is an old one. The only claim I know of was one where Joseph talked the proprietor out seeking the treasure. I could find no evidence that Joseph employed a seer stone in searching for treasure. There’s a lot of garbage out there connecting the common place of treasure hunting and use of seer stones to find the treasure. It’s not too hard to connect seer stone to find treasure = seer stone to translate a book, but it is not the same.

Joseph Smith was still a boy at that time and buried treasure could have been the fancy of any young man at that time. But Joseph didn’t have the time or means to get involved with any frivolous activity.

 

[BrotherofJared]

If you knew that he copied extensive portions from his copy of a 1769 edition of the King James Bible, including its translation errors, and put them right into the Book of Mormon, would that cause you to ask some questions?

Why would this matter? Mormons know several passages in the Book of Mormon come from the Bible. Very interesting how Joseph was able to integrate all that in a carefully woven narrative and it all fits together. I’d say, from this, Joseph is either an ultra genius or he got it from where he said he got it.

 

[BrotherofJared]

If you found out that Egyptologists have proven that Joseph completely mistranslated the papyrus scrolls to create the Book of Abraham, and that those scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham at all, would you take a second look?

I’ve already answered this one. You have your egyptologists and I have mine. They disagree, so lets disagree. You say his translation is wrong, I say it was right. It’s not like the Book of Abraham isn’t available for the general public to read. They may not be able to translate it, but they can read it and decide for themselves if it’s scripture or garbage.

 

[BrotherofJared]

I ask these questions because the historical evidence overwhelmingly shows that Joseph did all these things and many more just as bad or worse, yet most chapel going LDS have no idea and continue to believe that Joseph was a great man, husband, father, and prophet.

Actually the evidence is underwhelming. It’s almost entirely conjecture based on a few connections and little evidence. Most of the stuff you’ve quoted has been around for ages. The most recent being the DNA, evidence, but even that has been refuted. There are people who cling to false information because to do otherwise would mean they’ve been wrong all this time. Which one are you?

 

[BrotherofJared]

Here are the facts we know about the episode–Joseph examined the plates and translated at least a portion of them, and claimed they were something they were not. From Joseph’s clerk William Clayton on May 1, 1843:
I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound…They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.
From Apostle Parley P. Pratt six days later:
ix plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentlemen in Pike Co. Illinois. they are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham son of Noah… the gentlemen who found them were un-connected with the church, but have brought them to Joseph Smith for examination and translation. [A] large number of Citizens here have seen them and Compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyri which is now in this city.
So we know Joseph translated at least a portion of the plates and got it wrong, He was duped. That’s enough for me, unless you have further evidence that somehow proves the opposite.

Also, I would be interested in your thoughts on Joseph’s history of adultery and polygamous marriages (including his marriages to teenagers and married women). What I’m getting at here is that whether it be Joseph’s troubling personal life or his deceptions at “translating” multiple ancient documents, or a myriad of other problems, there is a pattern here that strongly suggests he was a con man. All I can say to you is that if you are really going to make an objective conclusion about Joseph Smith, you have to take emotion and loyalty out of the equation and examine the historical facts for what they say on their own. Surely you can see the church has not been forthcoming about its real history. There is a reason for that.

Well, it’s a fine job that you can quote these two men but neither were Joseph. There is no translation. Joseph apparently didn’t have the time to translate them. From what I can ascertain, and this is my opinion from what I’ve been able to determine from my research, Joseph may have seen them for only a few minutes and then never saw them again. Not the actual plates. Several facsimiles had been made was super busy at the time. He may have made a statement as to what they might have been, and from that statement some portions filtered through Clayton and Pratt, but their stories differ on the contents of the plates as well. But one thing is for sure, you won’t find a translation of those plates.

This is a great example of bending what little you know to mean whatever you want. Of course, you can accuse me of the same and again, I ask: How shall we ever really know who is right?

 

[BrotherofJared]

Where is it that we can see that polygamy was a teaching of Jesus Christ?

That is an interesting question since I don’t think I ever really said that. What happened was someone claimed that all these things are not part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I said I disagree. Of course, the most direct answer that I’d give is that Jesus Christ told Joseph Smith and that’s how we can see it.

But my disagreement was that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ or Jehovah, which I have stated in here before. If that is true, and I believe it is, then He gave Moses commandments and among them is the Levitical Law Duet 25:5-6 where the wife of a deceased husband would become the ward of the husband’s brother who would take her to wife and raise children to his kinsman and the inheritance of the dead husband would pass to the first born of dead husband’s wife as though he were not dead. This would preserve inheritance and was especially helpful since Israel was frequently at war. I don’t know how often this was practiced, but it certainly was applied in the relationship between Ruth and Boaz, Boaz being kin of Ruth’s deceased husband.

While there is no evidence of God telling Abraham or Jacob to take other wives or the handmaiden, it is evident that God either suspended the law in their situation or he condoned it because neither man lost his inheritance because of it. For whatever reason you might come up with, God allows polygamy in some situations. That god is Jesus Christ.

 

[LivingWaters7]

That is an interesting question since I don’t think I ever really said that.

In response to:

Polygamy was never the teaching of Jesus Christ.

You said, in post 276:

I disagree with you.

So, naturally, since you disagree with Stephen that polygamy was never the teaching of Jesus Christ, one could ask where exactly it was a teaching of Jesus Christ. Hence why I asked the question.

As we can see, nowhere did Jesus Christ ever teach polygamy, among many other unique Mormon beliefs.