Joseph Smith--glass looker

[majick275]

I think the salient thing (to me at least) is that a thorought reading of the D&C shows JS receiving a lot of “revelations” that appear self-serving. The Lord directing business transactions that helped JS is certainly something that I question. The Lord directing his wife under pain of “destruction” to accept all of his mistresses would probably be the most blatant.

I wouldn’t have such a problem with JS being so well compensated for his “stewardship” if he hadn’t made such a big deal of the “no paid ministry”. The sectarian minister in the original TC was a rather pointed attack on those who get “paid to pastor” yet here is JS doing the same thing. Building chapels and Temples is certainly understandable but hotels and stores? I’m not convinced. The LDS position is clear since this still happens today. The GAs invest in malls and insurance companies and all manner of other businesses and receive fair compensation for their “stewardship” of these funds. Of course teh misionaries will still proclaim the unpaid ministry as evidence of the true church.

I find that hypocritical.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I think the salient thing (to me at least) is that a thorought reading of the D&C shows JS receiving a lot of “revelations” that appear self-serving.

A thorough reading would also show that Joseph Smith was also greatly chastised for his actions occasionally. For instance the Doctrine and Covenants section (10) I cited earlier. He was also assigned impossible tasks and given much hard work to do.

The Lord directing business transactions that helped JS is certainly something that I question.

I would question it too. The Lord was directing the Kirtland Bank failure. He allowed it to happen. As the scripture says “It is not meet to be commanded in all things.” These incidents stress the importance of being able to forgive a prophet when he is not acting as a prophet, (not that this is always crystal clear, except in hindsight.) It would be difficult to remain an Latter-day Saint if I didn’t embrace this.

The Lord directing his wife under pain of “destruction” to accept all of his mistresses would probably be the most blatant.

I think that Joseph Smith deeply loved Emma, so this aspect of plural marriage probably “destroyed” him almost as much as Emma. So I can’t see this as self-serving because my underlying assumptions are that polygamy was a commandment to Joseph and had to be done no matter how unpleasant. Why it had to be done has never been revealed.

I wouldn’t have such a problem with JS being so well compensated for his “stewardship” if he hadn’t made such a big deal of the “no paid ministry”.

I don’t see anything in the scriptures that rule out monetary considerations for church administrators.

There are some cautions in the BoM, for example about priestcraft, and preaching what people want to hear with a profit motive. King Benjamin’s speech indicates that he supported himself in contrast to bad Kings–like Noah or Riplakish–that ran up taxes and exploited the poor and were polygamous.

But safegaurds against priestcraft have to be adapted to economic circumstances. In the early LDS church there was less of a division of the temporal and the spiritual. Being a bishop and managing the Bishop’s storehouse was a full time job.

Building chapels and Temples is certainly understandable but hotels and stores? I’m not convinced.

This is very understandable to me given that the Saints were living various implementations of the Law of Concentration. Although things went wrong in Kirtland, I would say the Joseph Smith’s social/economic blueprint for city planning and pooling resources was very successful when Brigham used it to colonize Utah. Of course, now we value more of separation from church and state.

[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

The rest of my post is meant to be more informational then apologetic.

The LDS position is clear since this still happens today. The GAs invest in malls and insurance companies and all manner of other businesses

From Encyclopedia of Mormonism on “finances”.
**
PARTICIPATION AND INVESTMENTS IN BUSINESS.** The First Presidency has established other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church’s investments and reserves (see Business: Church Participation in). Each of these key committees is chaired either by a member of the First Presidency or by another appointed General Authority.

The Investment Policy Committee is chaired by the First Presidency and includes the president of the Council of the Twelve, other members of the Twelve as appointed, and the Presiding Bishopric. Its purpose is to establish investment policy and strategy and to review key investment decisions.

he Deseret Management Corporation (DMC) is a corporation with its own board of directors. DMC functions as a holding company for most of the commercial businesses owned by the Church. These companies pay all taxes that are paid by commercial corporations. Some properties are also held for reasons other than investment. In addition to protecting the surroundings of sacred properties, such investments may be maintained to support the ecclesiastical efforts of the Church.

The Church still holds a few properties that were originally established to support commerce in LDS communities (see Economic History of the Church). However, as a result of an evaluation of these holdings and their contributions to its mission, the Church has divested many such holdings.

Of course teh misionaries will still proclaim the unpaid ministry as evidence of the true church.

This is probably a result of how our individual traditions use the terminology. In the LDS sense we have no “ministers” or “clergy” (EOM “Clergy”).

The word “clergy” generally designates those who are priests or ministers within the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant traditions. Since the term refers to full-time paid professionals, it is not used by Latter-day Saints. They refer to their Church officers as branch presidents, bishops, or stake presidents. These individuals are laypersons who, without professional training in theology, are called to these positions for limited periods of time by those having authority.
EOM “Finances”
Because the Church has no professional clergy, it is administered at every level through lay participation and leadership, and officials other than the General Authorities contribute their time and talents without remuneration. Thus, events such as weddings, funerals, and baptisms are conducted by the lay ministry in Church-owned buildings at no charge to the member for services or facilities. Because the General Authorities are obliged to leave their regular employment for full-time Church service, they receive a modest living allowance provided from income on Church investments.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

Good info mfool. I still believe that the “missionary” usage of the unpaid clergy issue is deceptive. The previous Temple implications were downright offensive. (although it should be noted that they along with many other “offensive” parts have been removed from the ceremony)

 

[PaulDupre]

1Cor 9:13-14
“Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat what belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.”

The bible authorizes a paid ministry. Why do the Mormons make an issue of it?

God bless us all,
Paul

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

The bible authorizes a paid ministry. Why do the Mormons make an issue of it?

God bless us all,
Paul

Probably because “priestcraft”, a loaded concept to be sure, is preached against in the Book of Mormon, which you will find in my link above. Also the early mormons blamed protestant minsters (perhaps unfairly) for inciting mob violence on them and driving them from state to state. And we don’t have a lot of patience for counter-cult ministries that make a lot of money publishing and putting on seminars attacking our faith or any one elses for that matter.

Interesting point though. I will have to remember that passage when some worry about LDS General Authorities getting paid for their administrative services.

–fool

 

[edmondhall]

Thanks for your responses to my questions M. Fool.

 

[amgid]

PaulDupre:

1Cor 9:13-14
“Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat what belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.”

The bible authorizes a paid ministry. Why do the Mormons make an issue of it?

That is not an authorization for a “paid ministry”. In those days preachers of the gospel were commanded to preach “without purse or scrip”; meaning that they were not to take with them any money or means of support. Instead, they were to rely on the Lord to provide for them; and this was invariably accomplished by the Lord softening the heart to the people among whom they preached to support them, invite them to stay in their homes, and feed and clothe them. It was an expression of faith in the Lord and in the promises of God.

Mark 6:

7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Luke 10:

1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.

6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Luke 22:

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

What Paul was referring to was the above principles. He was saying that it is not unreasonable that he, a preacher of the gospel, should expect this kind of support from the people among whom they preached, because it was commanded of the Lord, and he was traveling and preaching the gospel without any other means of support, as the Lord had commanded His Apostles. However, interestingly, the Apostles did not very often use this principle for their support, as they preached the gospel. They labored with their own hands, wherever it was possible, so as not to be chargeable to the people, and also to set a good example for them. Paul himself was a tentmaker by profession, and practiced his profession whenever possible to provide for his own needs and those of his companions:

1 Thessalonians 2:

9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

2 Thessalonians 3:

8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Acts 18:

1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;

2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them.

3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
If anything, there scriptural passages are a great indictment against any form of “paid ministry,” not in favor of it.

amgid

 

[majick275]

so does this support or contradict the “living allowances” for LDS General Authorities?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

so does this support or contradict the “living allowances” for LDS General Authorities?

No, it does not. LDS General Authorities are not currently in the business of “preaching the gospel without purse and scrip”. The Lord has therefore provided an alternative means for their support.

amgid

 

[Tmaque]

(Continued from the previous post…)

What Paul was referring to was the above principles. He was saying that it is not unreasonable that he, a preacher of the gospel, should expect this kind of support from the people among whom they preached, because it was commanded of the Lord, and he was traveling and preaching the gospel without any other means of support, as the Lord had commanded His Apostles. However, interestingly, the Apostles did not very often use this principle for their support, as they preached the gospel. They labored with their own hands, wherever it was possible, so as not to be chargeable to the people, and also to set a good example for them. Paul himself was a tentmaker by profession, and practiced his profession whenever possible to provide for his own needs and those of his companions:

1 Thessalonians 2:

9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

2 Thessalonians 3:

8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Acts 18:

1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;

2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them.

3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
If anything, there scriptural passages are a great indictment against any form of “paid ministry,” not in favor of it.

amgid

A great indictment?? LOL!! Come on now. This whole argument is silly. LDS can’t claim some higher ground on the issue because they DO have paid clergy, albeit only at the highest levels. But, that really is beside the point. It’s a matter of structure. If a LDS bishop had to shepherd 3000 families like many Catholic priests, instead of the 300 in a typical ward, then he COULD NOT keep a job! Period! There is nothing wrong with providing a Catholic priest with a living allowance so he can eat and have a roof over his head. They aren’t televangelists with big houses. No one is getting rich here. This whole line of reasoning borders on the ridiculous.

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

No, it does not. LDS General Authorities are not currently in the business of “preaching the gospel without purse and scrip”. The Lord has therefore provided an alternative means for their support.

amgid

Neither are LDS missionaries which goes against the teachings in the D&C.

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

A great indictment?? LOL!! Come on now. This whole argument is silly. LDS can’t claim some higher ground on the issue because they DO have paid clergy, albeit only at the highest levels. But, that really is beside the point. It’s a matter of structure. If a LDS bishop had to shepherd 3000 families like many Catholic priests, instead of the 300 in a typical ward, then he COULD NOT keep a job! Period! There is nothing wrong with providing a Catholic priest with a living allowance so he can eat and have a roof over his head. They aren’t televangelists with big houses. No one is getting rich here. This whole line of reasoning borders on the ridiculous.

Is that the best that you can do?

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

No, it does not. LDS General Authorities are not currently in the business of “preaching the gospel without purse and scrip”. The Lord has therefore provided an alternative means for their support.

amgid

Are the ful time LDS missionaries also not in the business of preaching the gospel without purse or scrip? (since they or their families are to provide for their own expenses)

I fail to see the distinction here between LDS GAs and Catholic clergy regarding compensation. I would think that your belief in the Lord providing “alternative means for their support” would apply to both.

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

Is that the best that you can do?

amgid

Is the best you can do, to say, “Is that the best that you can do?”?

Shall we dialogue on the topic or shall we move right to “I know you are but what am I”?

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

Neither are LDS missionaries which goes against the teachings in the D&C.

You are beating a dead horse with this one. LDS missionaries re not “paid by the Church” to do missionary work. Their expenses are paid by themselves (working and saving before they go on missions), by their parents and relatives, or by members of their ward. The “purse and scrip” is not the issue under discussion here. The issue is “being paid a salary for a Church job”. And LDS missionaries are not.

amgid

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Are the ful time LDS missionaries also not in the business of preaching the gospel without purse or scrip? (since they or their families are to provide for their own expenses)

I fail to see the distinction here between LDS GAs and Catholic clergy regarding compensation. I would think that your belief in the Lord providing “alternative means for their support” would apply to both.

You can say what you like. The LDS Church dies not have a paid, trained, or “professional” clergy; and you do. That is the crux of the matter. You can try to get round it any way you like. It won’t work.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Speaking about the LDS GAs I agree that the LDS do not have trained clergy. Wether or not they are “professional” is certainly subject to interpretation. We all know that they ARE paid.

To get back to the OP,

Richard L. Bushman :
‘There had always been evidence of it (“money-digging in the Smith family”) in the hostile affidavits from the Smith’s neighbors, evidence which Mormons dismissed as hopelessly biased. But when I got into the sources, I found evidence from friendly contemporaries as well, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Oliver Cowdery, and Lucy Mack Smith. All of these witnesses persuaded me treasure-seeking and vernacular magic were part of the Smith family tradition, and that the hostile witnesses, including the 1826 trial record, had to be taken seriously.’ BYU historian Marvin S. Hill has likewise observed: ‘Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith’s career as village magician.’" (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. 1998, p.59)

Joseph Smith was a “glass - looker”. The ceremonial dagger, parchments of spells and Jupiter talisman have been handed down by his descendants to this day. The LDS church posseses his seer stone still. (I wonder if GBH uses it ever to receive revelations)
These facts are not in doubt. The question was “how are these claims handled?”

The answer is that they are usually not talked about. If/When LDS historians persist in making these things known they are “disciplined”. (the september 6, etc.)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Speaking about the LDS GAs …

That is right—change the subject, beat around the bush, make slanderous accusations against innocent people—anything to get you off the hook! The truth is that you are an apostate, and you play your part well. You aren’t going to surprise me, no matter how hard you try.

amgid