If Joseph Smith were alive today would he be...?

[RebeccaJ]

So would you say that the FLDS would probably be closest to his ideology? That is the way I am leaning.

I’d say the FLDS are closest to Brigham Young’s and John Taylor’s theology.

Smith’s theology was ever changing. I think he tried at times to see just how much he could get away with, which was proven to be anything and everything, among his loyal followers. Control got away from him at Nauvoo though.

 

[superwimp]

However, I do not believe he was full of lust, or was some megalomaniac as many on this thread would claim. In fact, the real difference between a person who believes Joseph was a prophet his entire life, and one who doesn’t, has to do with whether Joseph received direct revelation from God and whether he honored that revelation. So let me ask this question, if Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?

Chapter 10 of the Book of Commandments says:

“And he [Joseph Smith, Jr.] has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.” He later changed this in the
D&C to:
“And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”
He therefore had no gift from God to give any instructions to the church.

 

[Tarquin]

I have asked many Mormon missionaries and other Mormons exactly what sin Joseph Smith committed. They have been unable to name a single one! Surely he lied, stole, coveted, disobeyed his parents, and lusted, or some of those, at the very least, as they seem to be the most common misdeeds, I mean sins. …

Joseph himself admits to committing some sins between the ages of 14 - 17. He says, “I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been.” …

However, I do not believe he was full of lust, or was some megalomaniac as many on this thread would claim. In fact, the real difference between a person who believes Joseph was a prophet his entire life, and one who doesn’t, has to do with whether Joseph received direct revelation from God and whether he honored that revelation. So let me ask this question, if Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?

Yes, he “admitted” sins, but confessed none. At least I have found no record of his confession to his bishop nor to his congregation nor to his wife nor to the church at large. I am not saying he did not. But I must suppose he did not. Certainly, such a confession would be evidence of his humility and humanity, so I should think it would not have been kept secret. As I suggested in the post quoted, “They [admit] that they sinned; they do not confess the specific sins themselves.”

“All kinds of temptations” met with in “all kinds of society,” yet no “great or malignant sins.” Just small, benign sins?? Diverse temptations “offensive in the sight of God” amount to no more than “levity” and associating with “jovial company?” Levity and jovial company being “not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God” as Joseph claimed to have been? It seems he is apologizing for *many *sins - “all” kinds! Not innocent levity or having good-natured friends, but all kinds! If not all kinds, which not? And how not those? Since he never confessed of particular sins, who can say which ones he did not commit?

Lust is a common weakness of youth and a common foible of human nature. So why would one think he had never lusted? Lust is not just blood-raging maniacal rape-lust manifest by criminal insanity. Lust is also the silent, smiling nonconjugal desire in one’s eye for a meltingly beautiful unavailable woman. Men’s eyes are easily turned, and in some cases often, even without outward manifestation. Adam lusted, some say. Judah and David obviously lusted. Other patriarchs turned their heads for a pretty face.

I do not see where we are told a good sense of humour, a little jocularity, some levity (goodness knows Paul levitated quite frequently), and companionship with jovial friends require confession. Perhaps when conjoined with another sin – such as insincerity or manipulativeness.

He also tended to extend trust to people too quickly, which individuals like John C. Bennett took advantage of.

And many trusted Smith, too, did they not. Too quickly, as he was a confessed sinner, who took the Lord’s words lightly, continuing in the foibles of youth even after a miraculous vision.

How odd that after Joseph prayed God to forgive him for all his “sins and follies, and also for a manifestation to [him], that [he] might know of [his] state and standing before him; for [he] had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation,” it was not God who appeared but an angel of light. The angel of light said nothing about his sins being forgiven. Instead the angel told him to go dig up some gold in the form of a book and read it. Joseph is told not to think of using the gold for personal enrichment, yet in his journal he said that is exactly what he was thinking. Really, after seeing God and Jesus and a supposedly holy angel, he is thinking about *stealing *from God!?

In fact, the real difference between a person who believes Joseph was a prophet his entire life, and one who doesn’t, has to do with whether Joseph received direct revelation from God and whether he honored that revelation.

Not at all! For one thing, true prophets are capable of sinning, they have sinned, there is no doubt about it. The first prophet, Adam, sinned. Abraham sinned, Moses sinned, David sinned, John the Baptist sinned. Their sins are recorded in the Bible, at least one per each of those five. One big problem with Mormonism is the belief that prophets are infallible, inviolable, and sinless. Mormons as much as place their Prophet in the temple as the Perfect Man. (2 Thessalonians 2:2-4) There are others “over” him – Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, and God, but only as a chain of authority, not in terms of degrees going from sinful to sinless. They are all effectively sinless. (“Effectively," not officially.) Mormon prophets seem incapable of actual, significant sin.

So let me ask this question, if Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?

First answer me one question, then I will answer yours. If Joseph was commanded by God to rape and murder every woman on earth, would he commit sin by doing so?

 

[Janderich]

Yes, he “admitted” sins, but confessed none. At least I have found no record of his confession to his bishop nor to his congregation nor to his wife nor to the church at large. I am not saying he did not. But I must suppose he did not. Certainly, such a confession would be evidence of his humility and humanity, so I should think it would not have been kept secret. As I suggested in the post quoted, “They [admit] that they sinned; they do not confess the specific sins themselves.”

“All kinds of temptations” met with in “all kinds of society,” yet no “great or malignant sins.” Just small, benign sins?? Diverse temptations “offensive in the sight of God” amount to no more than “levity” and associating with “jovial company?” Levity and jovial company being “not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God” as Joseph claimed to have been? It seems he is apologizing for *many *sins - “all” kinds! Not innocent levity or having good-natured friends, but all kinds! If not all kinds, which not? And how not those? Since he never confessed of particular sins, who can say which ones he did not commit?

Based on what you said above you think he should have made all the sins he ever committed part of some public record? You and I both know this would be rediculous and frankly unfair.

Lust is a common weakness of youth and a common foible of human nature. So why would one think he had never lusted? Lust is not just blood-raging maniacal rape-lust manifest by criminal insanity. Lust is also the silent, smiling nonconjugal desire in one’s eye for a meltingly beautiful unavailable woman. Men’s eyes are easily turned, and in some cases often, even without outward manifestation. Adam lusted, some say. Judah and David obviously lusted. Other patriarchs turned their heads for a pretty face.

I did not say he never lusted. I said he was not “full of lust” which is a different matter.

How odd that after Joseph prayed God to forgive him for all his “sins and follies, and also for a manifestation to [him], that [he] might know of [his] state and standing before him; for [he] had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation,” it was not God who appeared but an angel of light. The angel of light said nothing about his sins being forgiven. Instead the angel told him to go dig up some gold in the form of a book and read it. Joseph is told not to think of using the gold for personal enrichment, yet in his journal he said that is exactly what he was thinking. Really, after seeing God and Jesus and a supposedly holy angel, he is thinking about *stealing *from God!?

In the version printed in the scriptures there is nothing about Joseph’s sins being forgiven, but in the Messenger and Advocate a periodical published by the church, Oliver Cowdery says of the experience,

Though fear was banished from his heart, yet his surprise was no less when he heard him [Moroni] declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message, and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven, and that his prayers were heard;…" (M&A Feb 1835, p 79)

Not at all! For one thing, true prophets are capable of sinning, they have sinned, there is no doubt about it. The first prophet, Adam, sinned. Abraham sinned, Moses sinned, David sinned, John the Baptist sinned. Their sins are recorded in the Bible, at least one per each of those five. One big problem with Mormonism is the belief that prophets are infallible, inviolable, and sinless. Mormons as much as place their Prophet in the temple as the Perfect Man. (2 Thessalonians 2:2-4) There are others “over” him – Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, and God, but only as a chain of authority, not in terms of degrees going from sinful to sinless. They are all effectively sinless. (“Effectively," not officially.) Mormon prophets seem incapable of actual, significant sin.

I don’t believe prophets are sinless. But they are extremely good men who follow the Lord closely. I believe you would find many in the church who agree with me.

First answer me one question, then I will answer yours. If Joseph was commanded by God to rape and murder every woman on earth, would he commit sin by doing so?

I think you already know the answer to your question, and don’t want to address mine. But I’ll humor you. God gives no commandment that is wrong. The eternal and everlasting Father of heaven and earth does not, nor ever will, command us to cause everlasting harm to his children.

Now then, you should be able to answer my question, so let me present it again. If Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?

 

[John_Lazarus]

…banging on the lid of his coffin, screaming to be let out.

 

[campeador]

If Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?

Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt:
Joseph did not think of a marriage or sealing ceremony for many years. He used to state to his intended victims, as he did to me: “God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.” He only introduced a marriage ceremony when he had found out that he could not get certain women without it. I think Louisa Beeman was the first case of this kind.

 

[pmccombs]

I say mainstream LDS. It was his Church and he founded it originally. Remember, they followed Joseph Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, and went to Deseret-Utah.

I’m not a Mormon historian, but the LDS considers itself the Mormon Church, not just another sect like many of the others consider themselves. Brigham Young, I think, was his handpicked successor.

David Whitmer was Joseph Smith’s handpicked, ordained successor. He had a signed affidavit stating as much. But Whitmer had left the church after the failure of the Kirtland bank, becoming disillusioned with church leadership. Later on, others would remember Whitmer’s claim to succession, and from this claim there emerged a Whitmerite branch of the Church of Christ (the original name of the church).

Smith began and practically ended his career preaching from Ezekiel 14; and in the Nauvoo sermon, we have him making the claim that “the state of corruption of the Jewish Church” was that they followed prophets, when in fact God would not be inquired after. God would be willing to speak to the people through their idols if they insisted on “inquiring after him,” but the prophet would be deceived by God himself (according to the KJV, which Joseph used) and destroyed from the midst of the people.

I think that clarifies the trajectory of the Mormon church, at least in my mind; and apparently JS was aware of it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt:
Joseph did not think of a marriage or sealing ceremony for many years. He used to state to his intended victims, as he did to me: “God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.” He only introduced a marriage ceremony when he had found out that he could not get certain women without it. I think Louisa Beeman was the first case of this kind.

Sarah Pratt has been where much of my information about the early LDS movement came from. It seems to me that Smith was (and I believe I am echoing other sentiments) trying to justify adultery.

 

[Tarquin]

Based on what you said above you think he should have made all the sins he ever committed part of some public record? You and I both know this would be rediculous and frankly unfair.

And how! that’s why I’m glad *you *said that and not me.

I did not say he never lusted. I said he was not “full of lust” which is a different matter.

My comments on lust had nothing to do with what you said. It was a continuation on my discussion of the commonness of sin and the commonness of lust.

In the version printed in the scriptures there is nothing about Joseph’s sins being forgiven, but in the Messenger and Advocate a periodical published by the church, Oliver Cowdery says of the experience,

Do you then accept what is printed in the Messenger and Advocate reliable information?? Aren’t you the one who at one point pooh-poohed an observation because the wording could not be found in Scripture? If someone else quotes from the Messenger and Advocate as evidence of Mormon doctrine, will you now accept that? Or will you agree that Oliver Cowdery was not present at the time and thus is giving his own rendition and may have elaborated on it. Although so have you because the M&A does not on that page at least identify the angel as “Moroni.” I believe in other places the angel is identified as “Nephi.”

Though fear was banished from his heart, yet his surprise was no less when he heard him [Moroni] declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message, and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven, and that his prayers were heard;…" (M&A Feb 1835, p 79)

I already said as much: generic “sins”. And so far, all that I know about his alleged “sins” that were so “offensive” to Deity was that he displayed some levity, quite normal for someone his mid-teens, and has jovial friends. Have you ever repented for having jovial friends? Have you known anyone who has repented for levity? Where do those fall in the list of sins, near the very tip-top or the very bottom? They may be inappropriate in some contexts, but that should not qualify them as sins any more than being overly serious or being cheerless should be a sins. At present I do not see how they can be sins in themselves.

I don’t believe prophets are sinless. But they are extremely good men who follow the Lord closely. I believe you would find many in the church who agree with me.

So doctrine is established by majority vote? Then why aren’t you Catholic? Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, right? Large numbers of people at times are wrong. Consensus is not evidence in this case.

“Extremely good” - Are you reciting that from rote? Or when you wrote it, did you have specifics in mind? What did Howard Hunter do, as a prophet, that was “extremely good”? Thomas Monson has a truly remarkable memory, or uses extremely effective mnemonic aids. But what has he done, as a prophet, that qualifies as being “extremely good” rather than only “very good” or merely “good?” I have searched. I have read accounts of people who have conducted business with him. Some of those accounts are not very flattering.

So let me ask this question, if Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?

First answer me one question, then I will answer yours. If Joseph was commanded by God to rape and murder every woman on earth, would he commit sin by doing so?

I think you already know the answer to your question, and don’t want to address mine.

Au contraire. I very much want to answer your question. But there you go again, putting words in my mouth that are not true. I do want to answer your question. And I do want you to answer my question.

But I’ll humor you. God gives no commandment that is wrong. The eternal and everlasting Father of heaven and earth does not, nor ever will, command us to cause everlasting harm to his children.
Now then, you should be able to answer my question, so let me present it again. If Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?

I actually am not humoured by your non-answer. My response to your twice asked question: Likewise, “God gives no commandment that is wrong.” (If you want something more specific, you will have to make your answer more specific. Dare you?) I will add, however, in hopes of clarification for those who may not understand - your premises are false.

 

[Janderich]

Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt:
Joseph did not think of a marriage or sealing ceremony for many years. He used to state to his intended victims, as he did to me: “God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.” He only introduced a marriage ceremony when he had found out that he could not get certain women without it. I think Louisa Beeman was the first case of this kind.

Sarah Pratt had an affair with John C. Bennett to which a number of individuals testified. She is a poor source of information about Joseph if you know her history, and her above explanation does not square with the many other testimonies on the matter.

Now as yet, I have not seen a clear honest answer to my question. If Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so? Of course you don’t believe he was commanded of God, fine that is your belief. But that is not the question I asked.

 

[Janderich]

I think you already know the answer to your question, and don’t want to address mine. But I’ll humor you. God gives no commandment that is wrong. The eternal and everlasting Father of heaven and earth does not, nor ever will, command us to cause everlasting harm to his children.

Oh, boy. I give you an honest answer and you deflect. I tell you that God does not command us to commit sin and that is not sufficient for you. Now then, will you pursue my question or not? If not, then we can go no further and this conversation will of necessity end.

You said, “God gives no commandment that is wrong”. So then, *if *Joseph was commanded by God to begin plural marriage, do you agree that he would be right in following that command?

See, this is the crux of the matter to LDS and it appears that you will not face it. It also appears to me that a number of other people reading this thread will not face the question head on.

 

[RebeccaJ]

See, this is the crux of the matter to LDS and it appears that you will not face it. It also appears to me that a number of other people reading this thread will not face the question head on.

Tarquin already said he doesn’t accept your premises. This is an important point, as your premises make your question a loaded question. Refusing to answer a loaded question isn’t evasion, it is refusing to participate in a logical fallacy.

Granted, you may not accept the premises behind the question as asked by Tarquin, so around and around it goes.

But to answer your question. No, Smith would not be right, as he would not be following God but either himself or something/someone other. This is based on a premise, that our God is not fickle, commanding one thing one day and the opposite another. Jesus is our Prophet, he is who we follow, and Jesus has taught us that having more than one wife is adultery. He also taught that adultery is a sin. Therefore, God would not command adultery. Jesus is God, and does not contradict himself. Anyone “in the latter days”, who contradicts our Prophet, we don’t consider to be a prophet.

 

[Tarquin]

Sarah Pratt had an affair with John C. Bennett to which a number of individuals testified. She is a poor source of information about Joseph if you know her history, and her above explanation does not square with the many other testimonies on the matter.

Nor do Joseph Smith’s claims square with many other testimonies, not even his own. Doesn’t that make him, too, a poor source of information?

Now as yet, I have not seen a clear honest answer to my question. If Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so? Of course you don’t believe he was commanded of God, fine that is your belief. But that is not the question I asked.

Nor have I seen a clear honest answer to my question, First answer me one question, then I will answer yours. If Joseph was commanded by God to rape and murder every woman on earth, would he commit sin by doing so? Of course you don’t believe he was commanded of God to do that, fine that is your belief. But that is not the question I asked. If you want my answer, first give me your answer. Do you still not see the premises are false??? If you do, you will not be surprised by my answer, assuming I ever give it which depends on whether you give “a clear honest answer.”

 

[Tarquin]

Oh, boy. I give you an honest answer and you deflect. I tell you that God does not command us to commit sin and that is not sufficient for you. Now then, will you pursue my question or not? If not, then we can go no further and this conversation will of necessity end.

Whether or not you leave the discussion rather than answer my question is up to you. Don’t blame me for your decision. You have free agency. You can do what you want, stay or run away. You think you gave “a clear honest answer”? Then surely you can accept my clear honest answer. Your question: "If Joseph was commanded by God to begin practicing plural marriage, did he commit sin by doing so?: My answer:

Likewise, “God gives no commandment that is wrong.” (If you want something more specific, you will have to make your answer more specific. Dare you?) I will add, however, in hopes of clarification for those who may not understand - your premises are false.

You may paraphrase “God gives no commandment that is wrong” into your own:

I think you already know the answer to your question, and don’t want to address mine. But I’ll humor you. God gives no commandment that is wrong. The eternal and everlasting Father of heaven and earth does not, nor ever will, command us to cause everlasting harm to his children.

Since it is your own answer, word for word! I do not see why “that is not sufficient for you” since you obviously believe the same answer should be sufficient for me. Do you know what a double-standard is, and do you know how to recognize it?

You said, “God gives no commandment that is wrong”. So then, *if *Joseph was commanded by God to begin plural marriage, do you agree that he would be right in following that command?

Oh, so you did read my answer. And the answer is sufficient to keep you in the discussion. Very interesting.

See, this is the crux of the matter to LDS and it appears that you will not face it. It also appears to me that a number of other people reading this thread will not face the question head on.

You are spouting nonsense. Answers that other people give will not match what you think their answers should be! I do not see anyone who has refused to face the question of your implicit claim that Joseph Smith received a revelation from God to practice polygamy. Many people in many threads have addressed that issue. “Head on”? Seriously. People have posted “Joseph Smith was a false prophet,” “Polygamy is a sin,” and more. That’s pretty head on. You have only phrased the question slightly differently, assuming something that is not true, in order to prove something else that is not true. “If God commanded…” (1) God did not command. “Did he commit sin by beginning to practice plural marriage?” (2) Since God did not command it, yes he did commit sin. He compounded his sin by claiming God told him to do it. He compounded his sin by spreading it to others. He compounded his sin with a lie - that if he didn’t marry a bunch of women, and angel with a sword would kill him!

 

[Tarquin]

You said, “God gives no commandment that is wrong”. So then, *if *Joseph was commanded by God to begin plural marriage, do you agree that he would be right in following that command?

I do not agree. You are a Mormon, so you know that God sometimes gives commandments which if obeyed would violate the Plan of Salvation, right? Mormons teach that God gave Adam two commandments, contradictory commandments, commandments which it would be impossible (according to Mormon teachings) to obey. One was to be fruitful and multiply. The other was not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. But Adam could not be fruitful and multiply *unless *he ate of the Tree of Knowledge. God gave a commandment, the obedience to which would violate a commandment of God! Oh, Contradiction! Is that God? If the Mormon God could do such a thing, then the Mormon God could surely command Joseph Smith to commit adultery. If Joseph Smith’s mind were not keen, if his heart were not pure, he might follow that commandment. In fact, if Joseph Smith’s mind were not keen, if his heart were not pure, he might even mistake a false “angel of light” sent from hell for a representative of God. Adultery is wrong. Polygamy is wrong, for natural as well as theological reasons. If someone believes “God” or some unidentifiable spiritual being told them to commit polygamy, and they do so, they are as much as committing adultery.

 

[Tarquin]

Based on what you said above you think he should have made all the sins he ever committed part of some public record? You and I both know this would be rediculous and frankly unfair.

And how! that’s why I’m glad *you *said that and not me.

I have reconsidered this. Many people have made public confession of sins. If they wish to do so, I do not object as you seem to do, calling it ridiculous and unfair. In addition, courts have at time required a person to make a public confession. Also, in earlier centuries, monarchs and nobles were required to make public confession and pilgrimages as part of their repentance. So I must modify my answer. I do not consider it ridiculous or unfair for a person to publicly confess. Myself, I am glad the Catholic method of confession allows for a degree of confidentiality. I cannot say as much for the Mormon system which has been criticized for the many cases in which a confession given privately to the Mormon Bishop has the very next week been on the lips of the congregation. In either case, however, Catholic and Mormon both, if repenting persons wants to confess publicly, I will not fault them for that decision.

 

[campeador]

Sarah Pratt had an affair with John C. Bennett to which a number of individuals testified. She is a poor source of information about Joseph if you know her history…

(Mormon historian Richard) Van Wagoner has concluded that the adultery charges against Sarah Pratt are “highly improbable” and that J. B. Backenstos’s affidavit stating that (John C.) Bennett continued the adulterous relationship with Sarah Pratt after Orson returned from England could “be dismissed as slander.” In addition to Sarah, Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton “also suffered slanderous attacks because they exposed the Church’s private polygamy posture.”
wiki linky

…and her above explanation does not square with the many other testimonies on the matter.

Incorrect. Her testimony actually does square well with many others:
mormonthink.com/grantpalmer/grant6.htm

 

[adamhovey1988]

…banging on the lid of his coffin, screaming to be let out.

My sense of humour is mildly morbid, so, I giggled a little

 

[LutheranScholar]

If Joseph Smith were alive today, I have an uneasy feeling that he would be a blend of Seth MacFarlane and Jon Stewart.

 

[adamhovey1988]

If Joseph Smith were alive today, I have an uneasy feeling that he would be a blend of Seth MacFarlane and Jon Stewart.

Yikes.