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

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Some of us left Mormonism before the internet existed, and the “ton of dissenters”, as well. I just didn’t believe what the LDS Church taught, starting with, dark skin being a curse from God. The first sense of “something isn’t right here”, was when I was in elementary school, and the science discussion was about evolution and the role of melanin. While at church, I was being taught dark skin was a curse from God. I left quietly, in my early twenties, just stopped participating and lived my life without any religion.

I didn’t read any material Mormons would consider anti, until several years after I left. Still no internet or tons of dissenters. What the internet has done, is crack open what your Church has kept hidden from its members. So it’s backwards to say, your church doesn’t hide anything, it’s all on the internet. The fact is, your church can hide no more because of the internet.

 

[JaminB123]

I left the Mormon church nearly 20 years ago and this thread made me wonder what the Mormon church is teaching about Joseph Smith these days. I thought perhaps in these more recent years the Mormon church would own up to his well-documented lying about polygamy, his unbiblical and immoral practice of polyandry, his fabrication of the BoA, his threats in D&C 132 to “destroy” Emma if she did not embrace his polygamy, his violations of state bigamy law, his “dirty, filthy affair” with Fanny Alger, his hateful condemnation of Christians (“an abomination before God”, etc.), his attempt to undermine the freedom of the press by ordering the destruction of a printing press that attempted to expose his polygamy and other shenanigans, and the massive ego that led him to call himself Prophet, run for President, declare himself General, and claim that he had “more to boast of” than St. Paul and Jesus. Etc. Etc. We could go on. But maybe today the Mormon church would have the moral and intellectual integrity to acknowledge his sins, right? So I went straight to the source at lds.org to see what the current teachings are and the answer on the main page is…

Nope.

Check this out: lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith?cid=HPMO102014498&lang=eng

The header says it all: “Jesus Christ chose a holy man, a righteous man, to lead the Restoration of the fulness of His gospel. He chose Joseph Smith.”

So rest assured, Joseph Smith was a “holy man.” Our slander against Joseph, “the evil speaking”, like that on this thread, is akin to the slander that Jesus and St. Paul endured. Listening to us apostates about Joseph Smith is like interviewing Judas about the character of Jesus. The fact that Joseph Smith is being slandered is perhaps evidence of his holiness, just as was foretold in the New Testament. So there you have it. He is a “good, honorable, and virtuous” man. Joseph Smith is “holy,” just like St. Francis, Mother Theresa, the Theotokos, St. Nicholas, St. Peter and Paul, and their like. It’s all the Internet’s fault, with it’s lack of a truth filter, that we dare to question the holiness of St. Smith.

Wow. Just… wow.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Right, however, God promised Abram and Sarai that they would bear a child in their old age, together.

The promise that Sarah would have a child was after Hagar had already born them a child. Yes, you could say that he promised it in his old age, because he was already old. So this next part…

Ten years go bye, and Sarai, not trusting God’s promise, takes matters into her own hands and tells Abram to have intercourse with Hagar.

Doesn’t apply. If you are talking about his promise to Abram, in Gen 15:4. The promise was not to Sarai, it was to Abram from his loins, no mention is made of Sarai or old age (though he was pretty old at the time of that promise and it was his concern that his only posterity would be that of his head house servant.

I am not disagreeing that “This was Sarai’s actions…” but you have no proof that it was " not God’s" actions. In fact, after that Abram had taken Hagar to wife, the Lord blessed him and covenanted with him is evidence that God condoned it.

Abram, Sarai, Hagar and Ishmael then live in the expectation that Ishmael is the child that God promised, which is of course, not true. It is the child that Sarai arranged to come into the world via her own plans and ambitions, of which Abram cooperated with with. But Ishmael was not the fulfillment of God’s promise…

Yes and no. I’d only be nit picking here so I’m not going to discuss this unless you think it adds to your argument. Their expectations have no bearing on polygamy.

Years later, God makes his covenant with Abram, changing his name to Abraham and his wife’s name to Sarah. Telling them, again, that Sarah will have a son. The shock is throughout the following passages. Abraham’s response indicates he is worried about the fate of Ishmael, who but moments before he believed was the child that would be blessed by God. Now, what is the fate of this child? What can a father do but ask God have favor on this child? How bigger of a thing is it to ask when you KNOW that this child is a product of your lack of faith and trust in God?

He was not concerned about the Ishmael, he was concerned about the welfare of his wife bearing a child in her old age. In effect, he was suggesting that the blessings could fall on Ishmael and spare Sarah the burden, but God would not have it. Verse 17, which you skipped, clearly shows his concern for his wife and gives all the reason for his statement in verse 18.

Genesis 17

18
So Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael could live in your favor!”

Why would Abraham worry that Ishmael was not in God’s favor, if he believed something was right about the whole situation?

God then says, again, that Abraham and Sarah will have a child. Which is the promise made, and not believed by Sarah earlier in her life. Where she then contrived to make a promise of God come to pass without God.

Nothing in the scriptures supports this claim. Sarah’s only disbelief was when she heard that she’d give birth and she was already 90.

19
God replied: Even so, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. It is with him that I will maintain my covenant as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him.

God then shows mercy to Abraham and shows that his prayer for Ishmael has not gone unheard:

20
Now as for Ishmael, I will heed you: I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and will multiply him exceedingly. He will become the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.

But again, makes it clear that the covenant with Abraham and his descendants will be maintained through Isaac, who is the promised child from God, and not the child that came from Sarah’s unfaithfulness to God.

21
But my covenant I will maintain with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you by this time next year.

Beyond that, Sarai’s choices brought discord into the home. Jealousies and complications to heredity that would not have been there, had Abraham and Sarah trusted God and remained true to each other. Bringing Hagar into the mix solved nothing, and was not the means to make a promise of God come to pass, without God.

Sarai and Abram acted on their own, in an attempt to fulfill a promise of God. “Oh look, Abraham has a child, God’s promise is fulfilled.” NOT! Obviously, this whole extramarital relationship was unnecessary, and was not commanded by God, as evidenced by Isaac.

Yes. And one would wonder why God would continue his promises through such a despicable man? It’s certainly enough to claim that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. How then can Abraham still be a prophet after such a dastardly deed which brought only disharmony in the group and then was repeated yet again by his grandson and then by the whole house of Israel?

Probably because it wasn’t a dastardly deed and because God did condone it and continued to condone it for thousands of years, even including it in the Levitcal law.

I don’t believe Sarah was doing anything but trying to provide her husband an heir. She was not trying to fulfill any promise that God made to Abraham, and nothing that God said indicated that Sarah was to be the mother of that heir after Ishmael was born. It seed of promise was to be from Abraham’s loins. For all Sarah knew, Abraham would get married after she died and have a child by the next wife (which I believe he did). God reserved the honor of the blessings to go through the child of Sarah and Abraham. Such mercy for such sinful wicked people.

 

[BrotherofJared]

But your interpretation is counter to the overall message of the Bible, which is the love and mercy of God towards mankind. As someone who was raised LDS, it is difficult for me to simply accept God’s love and mercy. My conversion to Christianity really came when I finally “got” what God did for us through the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was so overwhelming, I fell to the ground and wept.

yes. I fell to the ground and wept too when I learned that God’s mercy was so great that he still talks to man and provides guidance just like he always has in the Bible, through prophets. Specifically through Joseph Smith in these latter days.

I disagree that mercy can rob justice though. Sin is sin and no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. The natural consequences of sin is separation from god. Abraham needed no mercy, he did not sin which is evident in that he was not separated from god.

So, if God’s mercy is sufficient for Abraham and Jacob and all the house of Israel, then why not for Joseph Smith?

 

[BrotherofJared]

Mary’s circumstances and the conception of Jesus Christ were less than honorable, really. You are unbelievable.

Really? getting pregnant out of wedlock is not a “less than honorable” situation? You are unbelievable. The point is, you make exceptions when you believe that what happened was right and good. But use these situations to poke other people in the eye and say they are bad and wrong.

Drawing from circumstances that surround Christianity’s role models, one could hardly say you guys are pillars of purity. You honor Marry as we do. She is the mother of God. The circumstances are unimportant.

Joseph Smith saw and talked to God and God, through him, restored the gospel. The circumstances are unimportant. I know it’s not “exactly” the same. We don’t honor Joseph the way you honor Mary. He wasn’t infallible. However, there is a bases for polygamy. The circumstances and opinions of today are unimportant and make no impact to Joseph Smith’s vital role in restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Are you saying that someday the statement “in base 10, 2+2=4” may not be true?

Gee there is only one Egyptology “expert” that claims the BoA translation is correct, all the others say it’s wrong, the consensus is that the papyri has nothing to do with the BoA at all.

Here we even have an LDS church member and Egyptologist who doesn’t believe that JS translated the BoA from the papyri:

And only one expert mathematician maintained the the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Believe who you will and I’ll believe who I will. The fact is there are differing opinions. One must depend on other means besides science to determine the truth here.

 

[BrotherofJared]

so Jesus lied when he said if a man leaves his wife and takes another he is committing adultery.“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matt. 19:3–8; cf. Mark 10:2–9; Luke 16:18)

if the two become one then you can’t any more people into the mix or the number will no longer be ‘one’.

No Jesus didn’t lie. Dumping one wife and going after another is adultery. Keeping both and being married to both is not. That’s polygamy. Would you consider that one wife dying and then going after another is adultery? Probably not. What if you were married to that one wife, who died for eternity (forever regardless of death). Is it adultery to go after another wife? or is that polygamy?

 

[HelenRose]

Luke 8:12-13

I am not a Mormon but the story of Solomon Spaulding, who is on my husband’s ancestral history has always intrigued me. My husband’s family believe that it was Solomon Spaulding who wrote the book of Mormon. They have keep and gathered what information his story. There is, of course, no proof one way or another but the family history makes a strong case. The Mormons claim that Solomon Spaulding’s story was lost in Hawaii. I have no idea how it managed to find it’s way to Hawaii.

Google Solomon Spaulding to find out about his life.

 

[BrotherofJared]

No God doesn’t allow it in some situations, in His mercy He forgives it. Do you have a hard time believing that God will forgive you of a sexual sin? I bet you read The Miracle of Forgiveness didn’t you.

You have the Bible before you. I say He allowed and taught polygamy from the very same pages you say he doesn’t. Go figure.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Some of us left Mormonism before the internet existed, and the “ton of dissenters”, as well. I just didn’t believe what the LDS Church taught, starting with, dark skin being a curse from God. The first sense of “something isn’t right here”, was when I was in elementary school, and the science discussion was about evolution and the role of melanin. While at church, I was being taught dark skin was a curse from God. I left quietly, in my early twenties, just stopped participating and lived my life without any religion.

I didn’t read any material Mormons would consider anti, until several years after I left. Still no internet or tons of dissenters. What the internet has done, is crack open what your Church has kept hidden from its members. So it’s backwards to say, your church doesn’t hide anything, it’s all on the internet. The fact is, your church can hide no more because of the internet.

My research started before the internet. I had to go buy books and study in libraries. The internet has since provided an excellent library where I can read both sides and yet, I find the information confirming of my beliefs.

If the science of evolution caused you any concern then I’m surprised that the virgin birth doesn’t. In fact, how can there even be an Adam and Eve with so much archaeological evidence that history is far older than the Bible. We cannot rely on science to teach us about God. If we did, we would be forever lost.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My research started before the internet. I had to go buy books and study in libraries. The internet has since provided an excellent library where I can read both sides and yet, I find the information confirming of my beliefs.

If the science of evolution caused you any concern then I’m surprised that the virgin birth doesn’t. In fact, how can there even be an Adam and Eve with so much archaeological evidence that history is far older than the Bible. We cannot rely on science to teach us about God. If we did, we would be forever lost.

Provide a scientific fact/evidence that disproves the virgin birth. It is what is called, a miracle, and I don’t have a problem accepting miracles.

I don’t take the pre-history portions of Genesis literally. They are sacred myths, that teach divine truths. I don’t believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

Thanks.

 

[iepuras]

yes. I fell to the ground and wept too when I learned that God’s mercy was so great that he still talks to man and provides guidance just like he always has in the Bible, through prophets. Specifically through Joseph Smith in these latter days.

I disagree that mercy can rob justice though. Sin is sin and no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. The natural consequences of sin is separation from god. Abraham needed no mercy, he did not sin which is evident in that he was not separated from god.

So, if God’s mercy is sufficient for Abraham and Jacob and all the house of Israel, then why not for Joseph Smith?

Where in the world did I ever say that mercy robs justice? I never said that or even implied that. Again, you seem to equate the mercy of God with condoning sin. Why do you assume that God commanded polygamy rather than accepting that God is merciful and forgives adultery? Maybe you are used to confessing to a bishop in the LDS church where punishment is meted out and forgiveness comes much, much later. Is it just easier for you to think that God commanded Abraham to marry Hagar rather than God showing mercy towards Abraham, forgiving him and keeping His promises?

God’s mercy is certainly sufficient for Joseph Smith. Maybe he was repentant in his last moments. We just don’t know. Only God can judge his soul.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The promise that Sarah would have a child was after Hagar had already born them a child. Yes, you could say that he promised it in his old age, because he was already old. So this next part…

You need to read it again, because, the promise of a child is what prompted Saria to push her husband towards Hagar.

Doesn’t apply. If you are talking about his promise to Abram, in Gen 15:4. The promise was not to Sarai, it was to Abram from his loins, no mention is made of Sarai or old age (though he was pretty old at the time of that promise and it was his concern that his only posterity would be that of his head house servant.

So, any woman would do. I find that a despicable view of women. The God I worship doesn’t view women as interchangeable in order to pop babies out for men.

I am not disagreeing that “This was Sarai’s actions…” but you have no proof that it was " not God’s" actions. In fact, after that Abram had taken Hagar to wife, the Lord blessed him and covenanted with him is evidence that God condoned it.

AGAIN, you confuse God’s mercy with God’s permission.

Yes and no. I’d only be nit picking here so I’m not going to discuss this unless you think it adds to your argument. Their expectations have no bearing on polygamy.

He was not concerned about the Ishmael, he was concerned about the welfare of his wife bearing a child in her old age. In effect, he was suggesting that the blessings could fall on Ishmael and spare Sarah the burden, but God would not have it. Verse 17, which you skipped, clearly shows his concern for his wife and gives all the reason for his statement in verse 18.

WOW! That’s you, just totally making stuff up.

Yes. And one would wonder why God would continue his promises through such a despicable man? It’s certainly enough to claim that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. How then can Abraham still be a prophet after such a dastardly deed which brought only disharmony in the group and then was repeated yet again by his grandson and then by the whole house of Israel?

God ALLOWED concubinage, which is NOT polygamy. Abraham never married Hagar. God also allows you to be a Mormon. Go figure. Abraham lived before Jesus, and Jesus clearly taught that marrying another while still married is ADULTERY. Joseph Smith, therefore, is an adulterer. You can’t claim cultural ignorance, or being unaware that polygamy is not allowed since Christ. Smith willfully defied God, and puts forth his own sins as divine commandment from God for OTHERS to follow. I think he has lot to answer for on judgment day, including leading people like you to defend sin.

Probably because it wasn’t a dastardly deed and because God did condone it and continued to condone it for thousands of years, even including it in the Levitcal law.

Please show where God condoned polygamy.

I don’t believe Sarah was doing anything but trying to provide her husband an heir. She was not trying to fulfill any promise that God made to Abraham, and nothing that God said indicated that Sarah was to be the mother of that heir after Ishmael was born. It seed of promise was to be from Abraham’s loins. For all Sarah knew, Abraham would get married after she died and have a child by the next wife (which I believe he did). God reserved the honor of the blessings to go through the child of Sarah and Abraham. Such mercy for such sinful wicked people.

You need to read it again. And read it without your sexist view of women.

 

[LivingWaters7]

yes. I fell to the ground and wept too when I learned that God’s mercy was so great that he still talks to man and provides guidance just like he always has in the Bible, through prophets. Specifically through Joseph Smith in these latter days.

As a Catholic, I’m grateful that God does indeed still talk to man, and never stopped. Joseph Smith and his unbiblical new beliefs are unnecessary. Catholic history itself is filled with Heavenly visions, angelic manifestations and visitations, miracles, etc. Heaven has always been open, at least in the Catholic view.

 

[BrotherofJared]

his hateful condemnation of Christians (“an abomination before God”, etc.)

Well this one is new. I like the way it makes Joseph appear to say that Christians are an abomination before God, when he never said that. But for the record, he said that the creeds were an abomination. As they should be if they are false.

 

[Denise1957]

And only one expert mathematician maintained the the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Believe who you will and I’ll believe who I will. The fact is there are differing opinions. One must depend on other means besides science to determine the truth here.

In reference to Galileo, the reason that the Pope did not accept Gallileo’s view about the earth not being the center of the universe is because Gallileo couldn’t scientifically prove his thesis. In order for his thesis to be considered, it needed to be properly proven. It was proven later, using a more sound methodology, which Gallileo wasn’t able to do. Also, it was never any kind of commandment that we believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Our Catholic faith doesn’t revolve around this issue, but Mormon belief does seem to revolve around the Joseph Smith Papyri issue. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that. It has been shown that the supposed Joseph Smith Papyri is not what he said it was, according to scientific, methodical historical analysis. I understand that you will have a different opinion on the subject than Catholics will.

 

[Denise1957]

No Jesus didn’t lie. Dumping one wife and going after another is adultery. Keeping both and being married to both is not. That’s polygamy. Would you consider that one wife dying and then going after another is adultery? Probably not. What if you were married to that one wife, who died for eternity (forever regardless of death). Is it adultery to go after another wife? or is that polygamy?

I hope that you can give proof that Abraham was married to Hagar. Where in the OT is this stated?

 

[iepuras]

Really? getting pregnant out of wedlock is not a “less than honorable” situation? You are unbelievable. The point is, you make exceptions when you believe that what happened was right and good. But use these situations to poke other people in the eye and say they are bad and wrong.

Well, if I believed what I was taught in early morning seminary regarding how Jesus was conceived, I would agree that it was a “less than honorable” situation. What I was taught was so dishonorable, I felt sick about it for a long time. Just another one of those things I put up on the mental shelf and tried not to think about.

Drawing from circumstances that surround Christianity’s role models, one could hardly say you guys are pillars of purity. You honor Marry as we do. She is the mother of God. The circumstances are unimportant.

Mormons do not give particular honor to Mary. How often is she held up as an example to emulate, particularly in General Conference talks? When I was LDS, Eve was spoken of with greater love, respect and appreciation far more than Mary. Eve was always held up as a role model to women. Mary never was. In fact, Mary is hardly mentioned at all. My LDS family is weirded out by the pictures I have of Mary in my home. That doesn’t sound like honor to me, especially given the fact that they have pictures of Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson in their homes.

Joseph Smith saw and talked to God and God, through him, restored the gospel. The circumstances are unimportant. I know it’s not “exactly” the same. We don’t honor Joseph the way you honor Mary. He wasn’t infallible. However, there is a bases for polygamy. The circumstances and opinions of today are unimportant and make no impact to Joseph Smith’s vital role in restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In my experience, Mormons give far more honor to Joseph Smith than they do to Mary. The last Christmas I spent in the LDS church, the ward Primary made a big deal about Joseph Smith’s birthday and didn’t do anything for Christmas. So who was more honored? Joseph Smith or Jesus Christ?

I think the “circumstances” of Joseph Smith’s behavior are important to discerning if he is trustworthy and his claims worthy of belief. Why should I believe anyone who claims to receive revelation from God? What makes Joseph Smith’s claims more believable than someone else’s? Jesus Christ’s ultimate proof is the Resurrection. So I believe Him. Why should I believe Joseph Smith talked to God and that he restored anything?

 

[BrotherofJared]

You need to read it again, because, the promise of a child is what prompted Saria to push her husband towards Hagar.

The scriptures don’t support your assumption. I can only guess you are crossing Gen 18:10 with earlier occurances. The scriptures do not show that she ever knew she was to bare Abraham a child until chapter 18, Ishmael was over 13 years old at the time.

So, any woman would do. I find that a despicable view of women. The God I worship doesn’t view women as interchangeable in order to pop babies out for men.

I don’t know why your putting this on me. From your own words that is what it appears Sarai was doing. What I was saying was that Sarai had no notion that God had made that promise to Abram. She was not present. You infer that Sarai, in order to fulfill God’s promise, which you have no knowledge that she had, decided that we’ll just pop a baby out of Hagar since my womb isn’t working at the moment. Isn’t that the same view as “any woman will do?”

As I stated at the bottom of my post, I said, God didn’t see it that way and honored Sarah and Abraham with the child of the blessings.

AGAIN, you confuse God’s mercy with God’s permission.

No confusion, I am disagreeing. Mercy cannot rob justice.

God ALLOWED concubinage, which is NOT polygamy.

That’s really straining the definition. Concubines are okay but polygamy isn’t. Geez.

Abraham never married Hagar.

No? Gen 16:3 “…and gave her to her husband to be his wife.” His wife but not married. But still, that’s okay and polygamy isn’t… Amazing.

Abraham lived before Jesus

No. Jesus lived before Abraham. Jesus lived before the earth was formed. He is I AM.

and Jesus clearly taught that marrying another while still married is ADULTERY.

Please provide me the reference. (don’t, it doesn’t exist).

Please show where God condoned polygamy.

I have shown time and again. This is circular. I’m chasing my tail.

You need to read it again. And read it without your sexist view of women.

I suggest you do the same.

This is a pointless argument because it is so circular. On this, we will just have to disagree.

 

[BrotherofJared]

God’s mercy is certainly sufficient for Joseph Smith. Maybe he was repentant in his last moments. We just don’t know. Only God can judge his soul.

Where did Abraham ever repent? And why was the practice continued? Joseph Smith had no need of repentance because he did not sin. There was no need for mercy.