How can you claim joseph smith was a prophet?

[Caprica]

SirThomas, it is clear that you disagree with the assessment of the moderators as to the charity (lack thereof more precisely) of certain posters in the LDS-related threads. I however agree with them, since they enforce the rules of this forum. If you don’t like that people can ask the moderators to step in, who will then assess for rule-breaking, then perhaps you may want to consider why you agreed to the rules when you signed up for this forum.

What is clear is that there are multiple ways to say something. The moderators have stated that charity is necessary. That’s what I’m talking about, though it seems that you are not concerned wit that rule of this forum, nor do you think that it is necessary for moderators to…moderate. The rules are in place for a reason, and we agree to abide by them when we sign up here. If someone is not, and it is hindering the discussion, then the moderators can be called on (that’s why they put the “report” button there, right?)

Also, it wasn’t Parker nor I that brought this issue up, but yourself. ParkerD let others know why he doesn’t respond to certain people. You then continued on that issue, to which I responded to.

As far as the topic, I obviously believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and I believe that ParkerD adequately addressed some of the so-called false prophecies (which I’m quite familiar with as well). Joseph Smith was not only a prophet, but was also a human being, as were all of the Biblical prophets. Prophets, whether in the Bible or otherwise, are not infallible, nor are they impeccable. Most criticisms of Joseph Smith assume an impeccability of prophets, which is unbiblical. It is clear to me that Joseph Smith restored many ancient truths from OT and NT times, things that he could not have known, unless he had a huge library of obscure texts that were unknown at his time. This is of course what the critics want us to believe, when they say “well, it was in this book and that book”, making Joseph Smith more read than anyone in existence. Non-LDS Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker has commented on the issue Mormonism in the context of ANE belief, and it is quite fascinating.

 

[twopekinguys]

Can anyone say ‘board nanny", and "deflection’?

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomas, it is clear that you disagree with the assessment of the moderators as to the charity (lack thereof more precisely) of certain posters in the LDS-related threads.

 

[PaulDupre]

Well, you’re right - Joseph Smith’s prophesies were simpler and more easily defined, whereas the Apocalypse of St John is nebulous, can be read to mean anything you might like to ascribe to it, and we’re not even sure who wrote it, or if it’s even a prophesy. As for Joseph Smith, perhaps if there were some Mormons participating in this dialog we could ask them. I’m just speculating, but perhaps they too consider the prophesies to be flawed, but they continue on because they feel that aside from a few missteps from leadership, they have a good workable faith and an established group identity that works well for them. I think it’s fair to say that most religions have had some embarrassing episodes in regard to their leadership. I can think of a good many. Some church leaders have been wrong in their beliefs, or in how their beliefs were applied, or just profoundly wrong in their actions. On the other hand, I am greatly pleased to see that the people press on with their faith anyway. Maybe the same is the case with the Mormons? I’d be interested to hear what they say.

I think you are right. Mormons by and large do not care whether their religion can stand up to scrutiny or not. They like being LDS and whether the religion is true or not they will go on being LDS. All religions have flawed leaders who have made mistakes, and Mormonism is no different in that regard.

But it is very different in another regard. The LDS church has, at any given time, over 50,000 missionaries knocking on doors all over the world to tell people that:

1. My church and its beliefs are an abomination before God
2. The LDS church is guided by living prophets who cannot lead the LDS church astray. Trust me, I was an LDS missionary, and they make a very great deal of the surity and safety that comes from following a living prophet who speaks directly with God and will always teach the truth.
3. They should leave my abominable and error-ridden church and join their error-free church which is guided by living prophets who cannot lead them astray.

Now, if the LDS church is actually just as flawed as every other organization and has leaders who make mistakes like all other leaders plus their leaders sometimes teach blatently false doctrines, then their missionaries should just stay home and stop stealing sheep.

Or at least stop lying to investigators.

 

[e46m3]

Well, you’re right - Joseph Smith’s prophesies were simpler and more easily defined, whereas the Apocalypse of St John is nebulous, can be read to mean anything you might like to ascribe to it, and we’re not even sure who wrote it, or if it’s even a prophesy. As for Joseph Smith, perhaps if there were some Mormons participating in this dialog we could ask them. I’m just speculating, but perhaps they too consider the prophesies to be flawed, but they continue on because they feel that aside from a few missteps from leadership, they have a good workable faith and an established group identity that works well for them. I think it’s fair to say that most religions have had some embarrassing episodes in regard to their leadership. I can think of a good many. Some church leaders have been wrong in their beliefs, or in how their beliefs were applied, or just profoundly wrong in their actions. On the other hand, I am greatly pleased to see that the people press on with their faith anyway. Maybe the same is the case with the Mormons? I’d be interested to hear what they say.

There have been embarasing things that have happened in the Catholic church, and many other churches for that matter. The difference here is that if Joseph Smith made even one false prophesy, then according to the bible, he is a false prophet, and a liar. If Joseph Smith is a false prophet, then the LDS faith is wrong. So why would they press on with their faith?

 

[SirThomasMore]

I think you are right. Mormons by and large do not care whether their religion can stand up to scrutiny or not. They like being LDS and whether the religion is true or not they will go on being LDS. All religions have flawed leaders who have made mistakes, and Mormonism is no different in that regard.

But it is very different in another regard. The LDS church has, at any given time, over 50,000 missionaries knocking on doors all over the world to tell people that:

1. My church and its beliefs are an abomination before God
2. The LDS church is guided by living prophets who cannot lead the LDS church astray. Trust me, I was an LDS missionary, and they make a very great deal of the surity and safety that comes from following a living prophet who speaks directly with God and will always teach the truth.
3. They should leave my abominable and error-ridden church and join their error-free church which is guided by living prophets who cannot lead them astray.

Now, if the LDS church is actually just as flawed as every other organization and has leaders who make mistakes like all other leaders plus their leaders sometimes teach blatently false doctrines, then their missionaries should just stay home and stop stealing sheep.

Or at least stop lying to investigators.

Yes. I did the same as a missionary. Some of us are accused of not being charitable here, but at least here is a debate board where debates can get testy. I can think of nothing more uncharitable than to go to someone’s home, knock on their door and tell them that their Church is false, and the LDS Church is the only true church.

 

[Returning_Home]

As far as the topic, I obviously believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and I believe that ParkerD adequately addressed some of the so-called false prophecies (which I’m quite familiar with as well). Joseph Smith was not only a prophet, but was also a human being, as were all of the Biblical prophets. Prophets, whether in the Bible or otherwise, are not infallible, nor are they impeccable. Most criticisms of Joseph Smith assume an impeccability of prophets, which is unbiblical.

Your first error here is assuming that the BOM prophets are on par with Biblical prophets, which couldn’t be farther from the truth since there never were any Nephites, Lamanites, or Jaredites.

The second error in your assumptions is that BOM prophets aren’t infallible; this position, however, clearly goes against the implication of all the church texts I’ve read and own. Gospel Principles (1996 edition) states: “The Lord will never allow the President of the Chruch to lead us astray.”

That said, if only one person at one point in time believed Joseph Smith telling them that the Indepenence, MO temple would be built in that generation’s lifetime or Brigham Young’s assertion that Adam was God, the above statement is proven wrong and the authority of the LDS prophets falters and fails.

My guess here is that you already know that and thus the attempt to bring down Biblical prophets to the level of those of the BOM.

 

[mflorence]

There have been embarasing things that have happened in the Catholic church, and many other churches for that matter. The difference here is that if Joseph Smith made even one false prophesy, then according to the bible, he is a false prophet, and a liar. If Joseph Smith is a false prophet, then the LDS faith is wrong. So why would they press on with their faith?

Good question as to why they would press on, but I’m just going on what I’ve seen over the course of a lifetime. People by and large stick to what they know and are comfortable with. I pop in on a lot of religious forums here and there, and I can tell you that there are forums where a lot of people spend all day writing articles about why anyone would stay a Catholic. So then I check in and see Catholics wondering why anyone is a Mormon. I like listening to views and discussing them. From my view, I see a lot of people with great intentions bantering over finer points of this scripture or that dogma. Against the backdrop of the larger picture I think it’s fascinating that they do that, and I like to ask questions about it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

e46m3,

So, then, when Jesus said “I AM that I AM,” you evidently don’t believe He was saying He was the God of Moses Whom Moses was to say “I AM sent me.” Since you evidently don’t believe that, then yes the Old Testament God of Abraham and Moses does not match Jesus in every particular way by what is recorded in the New Testament. Since I know that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then I understand differently about plural marriage being part of what God commanded to certain people (such as Abraham) at certain times in the history of the world.

God did not command Abraham, Sarah did not believe God and took matters into her own hands, it didn’t really work out well for her or Hagar though. Some would say we are still suffering the consequences of Sarah’s lack of faith.

 

[ParkerD]

By doing this, aren’t you reinforcing what they are saying? After all, you are admitting they have the background to answer the questions.

Somewhere back long ago (I’m not searching for it), I’m sure you made a statement similar to our other lds friends that you are here to help dispel misconceptions about the lds church.

If you feel these 3 aren’t providing accurate information, shouldn’t you be trying to rebut it?

Hello to one of the twopekinguys,
Thanks for the question, and sorry that I’ve been busy all day if it led to your wondering whether I would respond to this very pertinent question.

I did notice the post much earlier today, but the question is deep and I didn’t have the time then to explain the comment. I was glad to have seen the question; through the day I have had reminders through the Spirit that the love of God encompasses all people and I have been able to sense the love He has for the three people I placed on ignore. I need not feel any obligation to answer the questions or assertions they bring up–they are being cared for by an infinitely greater Power than I will ever bring to the table.

The simile that comes to mind about trying to answer the kinds of questions or assertions those folks repeatedly bring up, is the mythological Hydra where two heads appear when one has been dealt with–it is a never-ending prospect, with no possibility of there being an end, and with so much negativity that no one is benefited by the conversation. As far as I’m concerned, religious conversation that is not conducted in a positive tone and environment, is completely at odds with what the Savior and the apostles taught, and therefore completely defeats any worthwhile purpose.

There is also the very important teaching of “not looking back” which I had mentioned, and the only helpful thing I could think to bring to the conversation (trying to follow the Savior’'s example in this kind of instance) is to hope that will strike a chord (but probably unrealistic since human nature says otherwise).

Why does not looking back help one in their quest to become Christ-like? Because love flourishes when one is able to leave the hurts and mistrust about past decisions in their life (whether through family or friends or individual decisions in their life that they are carrying hurt feelings about) behind them. He promises new hope and new vision, and inner peace that is found through this process, and it can come to any spiritually “in tune” person, anywhere in the world. No doubt this happens for many, many Catholics many times in their life.

What I meant about their having background enough, is that they can find their own answers and don’t need my help in doing that. Any response from me will predictably result in more negative questions (mostly rhetorical).

On the other hand, when someone is on a forum who appears to have sincere questions and appears to be getting wrong information, then I have tried to provide the corrected information when it appeared that enough of a positive environment was on the thread that my comment could be helpful.

Peace to you, to the other of the twopekinguys, and to all other readers of this post.

 

[ParkerD]

God did not command Abraham, Sarah did not believe God and took matters into her own hands, it didn’t really work out well for her or Hagar though. Some would say we are still suffering the consequences of Sarah’s lack of faith.

Zaffiroborant,
I can certainly see why one would come to this conclusion. However, since Genesis 17:16 says of Sarai (Sarah), “I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her:” then it is clear that Ishmael was not a “mistake”, and was given to Abraham by God. (See also Genesis 17:20)

This particular subject ties to a theme of “necessary opposition” that is a common theme in the Bible. It happened with Jacob and Esau; it happened with Ishmael and Isaac. God could have “shut up” the womb of Hagar, or commanded Abraham not to take her to wife, and commanded him to wait with faith for a coming promise that Sarah would have a son. But God did not intervene in that way. There is a larger purpose at work than is going to jump out at a person reading that part of the Old Testament.

 

[zaffiroborant]

“I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness.”

I just can’t see this, both the US and Missouri governments survived and way more than “a potsherd” were left at the end:shrug:

 

[Returning_Home]

On the other hand, when someone is on a forum who appears to have sincere questions and appears to be getting wrong information, then I have tried to provide the corrected information when it appeared that enough of a positive environment was on the thread that my comment could be helpful.

Am I the only one who caught this? This is the real motivation for answering or not answering questions: sincerity. In the LDS context, what it means is that if he thinks someone can be deceived into thinking that Mormons actually worship the God of the Bible, he’ll answer with responses that sound good, but underneath, carry the same old hidden meanings that we’re all familiar with.

Not only would that take some of the heat off of the church in general, it might actually result in a conversion or two. That sincerity he mentioned is actually a receptive ear to the claims of the church by which they can state their beliefs and shape the perception of itself.

As far as ‘wrong information’ goes, the only ones putting that out is the church itself as it tries to sound and act like Bible-believing Christians.

 

[ParkerD]

Prophecy about Missouri–explanation

Zaffiroborant,
We note from history that although Missouri was a “slave state”, it did not formally join the Confederacy even though that state sent 40,000 troops to the Confederate army. It also sent 110,000 troops to the Union army. So it was a state divided against itself, and the Confederate side of that “state” did not survive with a surviving government.

That prophecy, as some in the Bible are, was what I would call a “hyperbole prophecy”, not a literal fulfillment prophecy where the exact circumstances are going to match the prophecy.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
I can certainly see why one would come to this conclusion. However, since Genesis 17:16 says of Sarai (Sarah), “I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her:” then it is clear that Ishmael was not a “mistake”, and was given to Abraham by God. (See also Genesis 17:20)

This particular subject ties to a theme of “necessary opposition” that is a common theme in the Bible. It happened with Jacob and Esau; it happened with Ishmael and Isaac. God could have “shut up” the womb of Hagar, or commanded Abraham not to take her to wife, and commanded him to wait with faith for a coming promise that Sarah would have a son. But God did not intervene in that way. There is a larger purpose at work than is going to jump out at a person reading that part of the Old Testament.

Genesis 17:16
NIV:
I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."
DR:
And I will bless her, and of her I will give thee a son, whom I will bless, and he shall become nations, and kings of people shall spring from him.
RSV:
I will bless her and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her and she shall be a mother of nations’ kings peoples will come from her.

I think you’re misreading the verse, but either way there is no commanding of polygamy in the verses you’ve cited.

 

[ParkerD]

Well, you’re right - Joseph Smith’s prophesies were simpler and more easily defined, whereas the Apocalypse of St John is nebulous, can be read to mean anything you might like to ascribe to it, and we’re not even sure who wrote it, or if it’s even a prophesy. As for Joseph Smith, perhaps if there were some Mormons participating in this dialog we could ask them. I’m just speculating, but perhaps they too consider the prophesies to be flawed, but they continue on because they feel that aside from a few missteps from leadership, they have a good workable faith and an established group identity that works well for them. I think it’s fair to say that most religions have had some embarrassing episodes in regard to their leadership. I can think of a good many. Some church leaders have been wrong in their beliefs, or in how their beliefs were applied, or just profoundly wrong in their actions. On the other hand, I am greatly pleased to see that the people press on with their faith anyway. Maybe the same is the case with the Mormons? I’d be interested to hear what they say.

MFlorence,
If you happen back, then if the cases that are often brought up are the cases PaulD was referring to, it is a simple explanation about those cases:

Thomas B Marsh was the senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve in 1837, and was told he was chosen to “hold the keys of my kingdom, as pertaining to the Twelve, abroad among all nations.” ( D & C 112:16)

This was his calling at that time. He was also admonished to “exalt not yourselves; rebel not against my servant Joseph;” (D & C 112:15) but he later did exactly that in a matter that involved his wife skimming cream from milk to have been equally shared with a neighbor, when she said she hadn’t done so (seemingly small matter, but it led Marsh to leave the LDS church when he sided with his wife).

Many prophecies are contingency prophecies, and depend on the contingency of the person’s faithfulness.

David W Patten was called on a mission to “bear glad tidings unto all the world”, and was killed thereafter by a mob; he was an apostle, and thus his testimony would go forth in the spirit world among “all the world” there. That is part and parcel of God’s work, as shown in 1 Peter 4:6.

 

[Returning_Home]

Thomas B Marsh was the senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve in 1837, and was told he was chosen to “hold the keys of my kingdom, as pertaining to the Twelve, abroad among all nations.” ( D & C 112:16)

This was his calling at that time. He was also admonished to “exalt not yourselves; rebel not against my servant Joseph;” (D & C 112:15) but he later did exactly that in a matter that involved his wife skimming cream from milk to have been equally shared with a neighbor, when she said she hadn’t done so (seemingly small matter, but it led Marsh to leave the LDS church when he sided with his wife).

Even if any of that were true, unless Marsh ‘sent the gospel and raised warning to all nations and people,’ and to the Jews in particular (v 4) while it was his calling, however brief, this, too, is proven false.

Not only that, but if he were to receive the keys to the dispensation, handed down from all of the ‘fathers’ before him, why did ‘god’ see his leaving the church coming from a mile away?

Verse 33 also implies that he may have to shed blood, and thus the ‘revelation’ is looking far enough into the future to show that the ‘god’ it came from didn’t have much foresight.

David W Patten was called on a mission to “bear glad tidings unto all the world”, and was killed thereafter by a mob; he was an apostle, and thus his testimony would go forth in the spirit world among “all the world” there. That is part and parcel of God’s work, as shown in 1 Peter 4:6.

This can only hold water if the 12 others mentioned in the ‘revelation’ died as well, which, to my knowledge, they nor Joseph Smith, weren’t. The text clearly says ‘…next spring, in company with others, even 12 including myself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.’

Since ‘the world’ isn’t a spirit realm, this doesn’t make sense on another count, too.

This is two more failures for Smith.

 

[ParkerD]

1. Even if any of that were true, unless Marsh ‘sent the gospel and raised warning to all nations and people,’ and to the Jews in particular (v 4) while it was his calling, however brief, this, too, is proven false.
2. Not only that, but if he were to receive the keys to the dispensation, handed down from all of the ‘fathers’ before him, why did ‘god’ see his leaving the church coming from a mile away?
3. Verse 33 also implies that he may have to shed blood, and thus the ‘revelation’ is looking far enough into the future to show that the ‘god’ it came from didn’t have much foresight.
4. This can only hold water if the 12 others mentioned in the ‘revelation’ died as well, which, to my knowledge, they nor Joseph Smith, weren’t. The text clearly says ‘…next spring, in company with others, even 12 including myself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.’
5. Since ‘the world’ isn’t a spirit realm, this doesn’t make sense on another count, too.

1. Many people are familiar with the apostolic charge, and that it means to carry the gospel message to “all nations” and to “all creatures” and lead people to repentance and baptism. This is an ongoing responsibility for the apostles called at any point on the earth.

“Jews” in that context means “non-Gentiles”, which means any of the house of Israel which does not only mean the tribe of Judah. Most of the early LDS converts were “Jews” in that they were from the tribe of Ephraim, although among “Gentile” nations.

1. God would not and does not call someone to “fail” or tell them they are going to fail, of course. God expects people to make a success of their callings and responsibilities in life, and gives them the opportunity (including demonstrating faith in their ability) to succeed in their callings and responsibilities.
2. A non-LDS is not generally going to understand what “blood be required at your hands” means. A person familiar with Ezekiel understands that a watchman called to give warning to the people, has the “sins” of the people accounted for on that “watchman’s head” if the watchman didn’t take his responsibility seriously and raise the warning voice to the people he was called to warn.

The use of the word “blood” ties to the atoning blood of the Savior. He suffered, bled and died for all humankind, and through His atoning blood our sins will no longer stain our “garments” through our personal repentance.

1. and 5) David W Patten was called as an apostle. The spirit world is part of the responsibility where the gospel needs to go forth, and it is on this earth, though unseen by us. (Sometimes it is felt by people who are “in tune” with spiritual feelings and who may have reason to feel the presence, spiritually, of someone they love who has passed on to the spirit world.)

Peace to all, and have a good day.

 

[twopekinguys]

Hello to one of the twopekinguys,
Thanks for the question, and sorry that I’ve been busy all day if it led to your wondering whether I would respond to this very pertinent question.

I did notice the post much earlier today, but the question is deep and I didn’t have the time then to explain the comment. I was glad to have seen the question; through the day I have had reminders through the Spirit that the love of God encompasses all people and I have been able to sense the love He has for the three people I placed on ignore. I need not feel any obligation to answer the questions or assertions they bring up–they are being cared for by an infinitely greater Power than I will ever bring to the table.

The simile that comes to mind about trying to answer the kinds of questions or assertions those folks repeatedly bring up, is the mythological Hydra where two heads appear when one has been dealt with–it is a never-ending prospect, with no possibility of there being an end, and with so much negativity that no one is benefited by the conversation. As far as I’m concerned, religious conversation that is not conducted in a positive tone and environment, is completely at odds with what the Savior and the apostles taught, and therefore completely defeats any worthwhile purpose.

There is also the very important teaching of “not looking back” which I had mentioned, and the only helpful thing I could think to bring to the conversation (trying to follow the Savior’'s example in this kind of instance) is to hope that will strike a chord (but probably unrealistic since human nature says otherwise).

Why does not looking back help one in their quest to become Christ-like? Because love flourishes when one is able to leave the hurts and mistrust about past decisions in their life (whether through family or friends or individual decisions in their life that they are carrying hurt feelings about) behind them. He promises new hope and new vision, and inner peace that is found through this process, and it can come to any spiritually “in tune” person, anywhere in the world. No doubt this happens for many, many Catholics many times in their life.

What I meant about their having background enough, is that they can find their own answers and don’t need my help in doing that. Any response from me will predictably result in more negative questions (mostly rhetorical).

On the other hand, when someone is on a forum who appears to have sincere questions and appears to be getting wrong information, then I have tried to provide the corrected information when it appeared that enough of a positive environment was on the thread that my comment could be helpful.

Peace to you, to the other of the twopekinguys, and to all other readers of this post.

Oh Parker,

Sometimes, you just make me chuckle.

How did a simple question like what I asked you end up with an 8 paragraph answer? I think everything could have been answered in paragraph 6, don’t you?

Both of us thank you for your reply

 

[Caprica]

Your first error here is assuming that the BOM prophets are on par with Biblical prophets, which couldn’t be farther from the truth since there never were any Nephites, Lamanites, or Jaredites.

We’re talking about my beliefs, yes? Therefore your belief on Book of Mormon peoples is not part of my argument.

The second error in your assumptions is that BOM prophets aren’t infallible; this position, however, clearly goes against the implication of all the church texts I’ve read and own. Gospel Principles (1996 edition) states: “The Lord will never allow the President of the Chruch to lead us astray.”

Of course. The issue is that prophets simply are not infallible all the time. As a Catholic, you should be familiar with that concept. The problem is that most critics of LDS prophets assume that they should be both infallible (all the time) and impeccable, and neither concept is part of LDS belief, nor is it Biblical.

That said, if only one person at one point in time believed Joseph Smith telling them that the Indepenence, MO temple would be built in that generation’s lifetime or Brigham Young’s assertion that Adam was God, the above statement is proven wrong and the authority of the LDS prophets falters and fails.

This doesn’t make sense. What do you mean by “only one person at one point in time”? Latter-day Saints have standards on what is scripture, revelation, etc., and therefore issues such as Adam/God are non-issues. Critics attempt to make it that everything a prophet says all the time is considered revelation, which is not part of LDS belief, nor is it Biblical. Also, when one reads more about Adam/God, a subsequent understanding of Adam as “father”, as in “patriarch” is also seen. I assume that you are familiar with that.

My guess here is that you already know that and thus the attempt to bring down Biblical prophets to the level of those of the BOM.

There is no “bring[ing] down”. As I said before: Critics of LDS prophets attempt to posit an infallibility and impeccability (especially) of prophets that we LDS do not hold to ourselves, nor are such concepts Biblical (i.e. when we evaluate Biblical prophets and the standards of them). Prophets, whether in the Bible or in other LDS scriptures and the living prophets, are human beings. They sin just like the rest of us. They are not perfect, not everything they say is from God, etc. Critics attempt to make everything they say an alleged prophecy, which is not a Biblical standard, nor is it something LDS believe ourselves.