In Defense of Joseph Smith

[JaminB123]

Yes. I thought someone would stretch this around to meet their needs no matter how difficult it would be./QUOTE]

Really? You are the one stretching this one obscure OT scripture around to meet your needs (specifically, to justify the scandalous, illegal, bigamist/polygamous/polyandrous behavior of your church’s founder, Joseph Smith.). Even if we accept this OT scripture as binding on Christians, it does not remotely resemble the conditions of JS’s bigamist, polygamous, polyandrous marriages. He wasn’t marrying his brother’s widows! You know that. Again, even at face value and ignoring the NT and all of Christian tradition, this passage does not apply to the situations that JS was in when he engaged in these scandalous bigamist/polygamous/polyandrous marriages. You do realize that, don’t you?

All that notwithstanding, you completely ignore the clearly monogomous teachings of Jesus, the New Testament, and sacred Christian tradition. Why do you ignore this so readily? Does JS trump Jesus Christ so easily?

How does this passage relate to or justify JS’s scandalous bigamist/polygamous/polyandrous marriages? Answer: it does not. How are JS’s scandalous bigamist/polygamous/polyandrous marriages reconcilable with the NT and Christian tradition? Answer: they aren’t.

You keep grasping at straws trying to defend bigamist/polygamous/polyandrous marriages; we Christians are not grasping at straws in our defense of monogamy. We are clinging to Christ’s teachings, the New Testament, and sacred Christian tradition. For the sake of your soul, please give up your defense of JS’s wickedness with respect to marriage.

 

[JaminB123]

Then let the conversation be over, but it was practiced and proper in certain circumstances and god commanded it. Therefore it stands to reason that God can command it again if the circumstances warrant it.

That God commanded polygamy is a lie. Do you understand that yet? Was it practiced? Yes. Was it proper and commanded by God? No. To say otherwise is a lie. Mormons such as yourself perpetuate this lie again and again, but that does not make it so. It is still a lie. You have been challenged to defend this lie on this and other threads; the only thing you can produce is one isolated, failed prooftext that has been exposed repeatedly.

You ignore Jesus’ teachings on marriage, New Testament teachings on marriage, and sacred Christian tradition on marriage… all based on your personal interpretation of an obscure, superseded OT passage that bore ZERO resemblance to the scandalous, illegal, polygamist, polyandrous shenanigans of your church’s founder, Joe Smith. This OT passage does not remotely relate to JS or BY. Read it again. There is no relation between this OT passage and the “marital behavior” of your church’s founders–can you at least have the moral and intellectual integrity to admit that much?

 

[Horton]

Yes. Early second century. That is not early enough to be in the scriptures. Meaning you guys made up the name of the church after the apostles died. The members of the church during the apostles lives did not call themselves Catholic. But still, this argument is moot. No apostles, no church.

I’ve lived in morman country for many years and this is a prime example of the circular arguments they engage in to attempt to prove their point.

The two main issues with the morman church are: 1) They don’t understand the mystery of faith. They MUST put human English names & terms to everything about their religion & 2) The human English names & terms are fluid, ever changing to suit societal changes such as now calling themselves Christians when not too many years ago they didn’t.

Catholic=Universal! Your argument is moot. Too many apostles, prophets, seers…fairy tail doctrine = no church. Your argument is not biblically sound.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I wasn’t arguing. I was postulating. There is no name of the church in the Bible, including the absence of the name: Catholic church.

So then if there is no name of the Church in the Bible, I’m not sure why you brought this up in the first place.

I have read that your Bishops, at some level, have the same functions as the apostles, but still; they are not apostles and why not?

The Bible clearly documents what it takes to be considered an “Apostle”, in the sense of being one of the Twelve, as we see in determining the replacement of Judas. The Bible also refers to others as “apostles”, in the general sense of the term, i.e. one who is sent. The Apostles passed on their authority/office to their successors. Therefore, apostolic authority is still present in the Church, and always has been.

How many Priests does it take to ordain a Bishop? Lets say there was a holocaust of some sort and all the Bishops are dead, we only have a few Priests left, how many Priests does it take to ordain a Bishop? I can’t find the answer to that anywhere and I did Google it.

That’s because priests don’t ordain bishops.

There are no apostles in the church today because they all died and if you have no apostles, then you have no church. All you have is a place to meet.

The Apostles passed on their priesthood office, i.e. that of “bishop”, to their successors. Their priesthood authority was never lost. LDS “apostles” (and those of various other churches claiming the same thing) do not meet the Biblical requirements of being one of the Twelve.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I guess then, it depends one what you think the OP meant by accomplishments. How are Islam’s accomplishments similar to Mormons?

Read part of what he claimed: “If he was given to false and vain practices as some like to spitefully accuse him of, would not his religious organization have been toppled years ago?”

“He” could very well refer to Muhammad, or the founder of any other religion claiming to bring back the truth that was purportedly lost. This isn’t some sort of unique Mormon claim. Islam, Seventh-day Adventists, and various other religions have more members than Mormonism, for one, so why, if they are not the truth, have they not toppled years ago? His argument above makes no sense.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I know that already. Nit picking my words. There’s still no apostles.

No it is not nit picking, it is being specific. No Catholic would claim that there was an “office” of Pope in the early Church, therefore I’m not sure why you would say “There was no such office as a Pope in the early Christian church” if you knew already that Catholics would never say such a thing anyway. We do claim that Bishops were present in the early Church, and that is what the Pope is. Bishops also have the authority of the Apostles, as it was given to them.

 

[LivingWaters7]

That assumes, of course, that apostle is not an office.

If it is (and not just a title), then please demonstrate it.

It also assumes that you have the right understanding of a bishop’s office.

Demonstrate that we do not have the right understanding.

I contend that there was a lot of re-defining after the apostles were killed.

Based on what evidence? Cite your evidence.

If your definition of apostle is correct then the church must truly have been short-circuited at the very beginning. We can’t have it both ways, apostles being present at Christ’s life and resurrection and having first apostles in the church. That’d be a church that would last less that, what 60 years?

Huh? It is Mormonism that claims that the Church short circuited at the very beginning. We claim that Jesus Christ leads His own Body, guided by the Holy Spirit, and that it has continued down through the ages with the same authority Christ gave her.

We believe, as I have already stated, that the Apostles passed on their own authority to their successors, Bishops, and therefore apostolic authority was never lost.

The first calling to the quorum as one who filled that description, but it cannot have been a requirement as Peter must have known that eventually, they would call other apostles that didn’t fit that description, i.e. Paul. The requirement appears to be that apostles were always a requirement in order to properly administer God’s church.

Demonstrate that Paul was one of the Twelve, which is what we are talking about in reference to a “requirement”. As I already stated, “apostle” means “one who is sent”. In that sense, all those sent/commissioned by Jesus Christ are “apostles”, yet they are not one of the Twelve. However, as I have already stated, their authority, their “bishoprick”, as the Bible itself states, was passed on, and the Bishops, as their successors have their apostolic authority.

 

[adrift]

Where does it say which apostles that vers refers too?

Acts 1:8, 21-22
More about their appointment
Matthew 10:1Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 24:46-49

How do you know it wasn’t a permanent requirement? (because it’s not in the Catholic church?).

Why do you believe it was because the LDS says so? Yes I believe it because Scripture shows it to be true that the meaning of apostle is one who is sent. You mentioned Paul being an apostle there were others Timothy, Titus, Barnabas Andronicus and Junias , Epaphroditus but they were not appointed by Jesus they were however sent the meaning of apostle. In that terminology, we are all sent to spread the word of God.
Matthew 19:28

And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Only 12 which is clear that only those 12 are Apostles.

I agree, that is when the church founded by Christ started, It was taken away because that church kept allowing outside influences to dictate their beliefs which lead them away from Christ just as the children of Israel constantly kept departing from their God. Thus the reason I keep stating, if you lose the apostles, you lose the church and it had to be restored, thus the need for a prophet to be called to restore it in 1830 (you’re one year off).

Then Jesus was a liar and for over 1, 700 years the gates of hades prevailed. How do you know this is true(LDS says so?) It is false Jesus said that He would be with His Church always. John 14:16-21. There is no scripture that even hints “if you lose the apostles, you lose the church” The Church was not restored for there was nothing to be restored but in 1830 a convicted con artist/a false prophet began the LDS church.

 

[Jerusha]

Seems like this thread has degenerated into attacks on the Catholic Church.

To return to the original topic:
There can be no defense of Joseph Smith, other than that he was a product of the environment in which he was raised. This places the responsibility on his family, many of whom supported him in the beginning, but who eventually rejected polygamy. It also places the responsibility on the anti-Catholic Protestant aura surrounding New England, in opposition to French Canadian Catholics just across the border.

Anyone who wants to contest this statement ought to read the Jesuit Relations, to see what kind of power they were opposing. puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/

 

[adrift]

Yes. I thought someone would stretch this around to meet their needs no matter how difficult it would be. What if the brother was already married?

The stretch was yours. It does not support polygamy as another as aptly pointed out.

 

[adrift]

Please show me where I am wrong about it. If it’s too big to put here, give me a link.

Your making the claim that Moses commanded polygamy. You are the one who must show this is true. Every attempt you have made has been shot down.

I still would like to know what you mean by “early Christian” ?

 

[Jerusha]

Your making the claim that Moses commanded polygamy. You are the one who must show this is true. Every attempt you have made has been shot down.

I still would like to know what you mean by “early Christian” ?

Mormons claim that the early Christians practiced polygamy. It is in the Journal of Discourses. Since their claim is that Mormonism is a restoration of early Christianity…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Duet 25:6-12. I’m not going to post the whole thing here, you’ll need to look it up, but basically it provides for the living kinsman to take his dead brother’s wife and produce children so that he, the dead brother, might have an heir. Now that doesn’t say polygamy by itself, but it would be counter productive to have a law that prevented the living brother from having any heirs, especially if the law was designed so that the dead brother could have heirs. This law was so commonly known and practiced that even David’s family practiced it and the situation was presented to Christ in a effort to discredit the reality of the resurrection.

Moses practiced what he preached and authorized it by law in the circumstances provided here.

This isn’t even rational.

THIS makes it very hard for me to not think there is a pervasive stupidity in LDS teaching.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I mean the persecuted early Christians didn’t all themselves Catholics as iepuras implies. During that time, they didn’t even call themselves Christians. The Bible uses terms that used as disciples or saints. Precisely my statement is, the early Christians were not Catholic. That came later.

So, since they didn’t call themselves Christians they must not have been Christians.

The Bible doesn’t name the canon of the NT, yet you seem to enjoy abusing it anyway.

 

[adrift]

Mormons claim that the early Christians practiced polygamy. It is in the Journal of Discourses. Since their claim is that Mormonism is a restoration of early Christianity…

Thank You for the information. My question on “early Christians” is in reference to what years?

 

[Robyn_p]

With this kind of reasoning, there is no way to use the Bible to prove anything but what you want it to say. It’s a wonder that Christ could use any of the Old Testament to prove he was the Son of God or of a resurrection. God didn’t really talk to them. Moses just kind of made it up as he went along. They had to wait until Judah was exiled to Babylon before they really understood how God worked. I guess the exile finally woke them up… NOT.

You misunderstand me. I didn’t say Moses just made it up or that God never spoke to them at all. I said the early Jews didn’t have the full understanding and revelation of God that we have in Christ. That’s a big difference from God never spoke to them. God met the Israelites where they were at and slowly brought them from a deeply pagan culture to a fuller and truer understanding of himself. He didn’t do it all at once. They wouldn’t have been able to handle it otherwise.

So no, this reasoning doesn’t show that we can’t use the Bible to prove anything. What it does show is that we need to take divine revelation as a whole. And that we can’t take a verse or two out of the context of the rest of Scripture, isolate it, and build an entire doctrine around it. We end up with severe problems if we use the Bible that way.

 

[Jerusha]

The early Mormon claim was that Jesus was a polygamist. So from then on to maybe about 200 AD at the most. 80 AD at the least, since the early church died when the last apostle died. I just got a new computer yesterday, so my files are all messed up. In the Journal of Discourses, one of the early Mormon Apostles claimed that the early Christians were killed off because they practiced polygamy. I’ll get back on this later when I get things straightened out.

 

[adrift]

The early Mormon claim was that Jesus was a polygamist. So from then on to maybe about 200 AD at the most. 80 AD at the least, since the early church died when the last apostle died. I just got a new computer yesterday, so my files are all messed up. In the Journal of Discourses, one of the early Mormon Apostles claimed that the early Christians were killed off because they practiced polygamy. I’ll get back on this later when I get things straightened out.

It is interesting that you say that the early church died when the last apostle died. I thought the LDS belied that John is still wondering the earth.

 

[Marie5890]

It is interesting that you say that the early church died when the last apostle died. I thought the LDS belied that John is still wondering the earth.

Oh, no. Not that that one bit of Mormon doctrine.

 

[Jerusha]

It is interesting that you say that the early church died when the last apostle died. I thought the LDS believed that John is still wondering the earth.

Internal inconsistencies are characteristic of a gnostic religion. If early Christianity died out, particularly upon the suppression of the Gnostic cults, then the Catholic church is in apostasy. If Catholicism maintains the essence of early Christianity through the succession of the bishops, then Mormonism is an apostasy. A very simple either-or situation.

Consistent with Mormonism’s denial of the work of the early Jesuits through their confabulated book. Protestants were late to the game, and they knew it.