LDS and ancient record...

[Telstar]

…but he is their original Prophet, Seer and Revelator. They’ve already all accepted that the First Vision really happened and most believe that he was human and made mistakes. For them, that makes him even more believable and doesn’t necessarily take away from his character for them. IMO, this is a no-win scenario for non-LDS since it doesn’t necessarily take away from what Joseph Smith was able to establish. They’re 14 million strong and growing.

That’s what’s cool about a book like Rough Stone Rolling that was written by a Mormon. Non-LDS can read it and be convinced that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet while LDS folks can read it and be convinced all the questions about him are now answered.

One thing I learned with my LDS wife was that any conversation that involved JS needed to be handled with kid gloves since she revered him. Just the way it was.

I understand that. When you see someone as a hero, you tend to overlook their shortcomings. I could understand them doing that if we were just talking about a baseball player or some other sports figure (O.J. Simpson?), but I tend to view religious heroes (Saints) with a much more critical eye. When they do the kinds of things that Joseph Smith did after he was supposedly ‘called to be a prophet’, then I tend to doubt that they really were what they claimed to be. While I know that men like St. Augustine were far from being the great Saints that they became later in life, before their conversion, I still expect them to have changed their sinful ways after their conversion, which he certainly did. But, Joseph Smith never seemed to change his ways throughout his entire life, to the day he died in a bloody gunfight. I think that’s a reflection on his true character that I, personally, could never overlook, much less completely ignore.

 

[blueadept]

… to the day he died in a bloody gunfight. I think that’s a reflection on his true character that I, personally, could never overlook, much less completely ignore.

You see an unworthy, bloody gunfight and LDS sees martyrdom where he tried to defend his friends. We will never see him as a martyr while they always will. Us attacking Joseph Smith’s character is a losing battle IMO.

 

[Telstar]

You see an unworthy, bloody gunfight and LDS sees martyrdom where he tried to defend his friends. We will never see him as a martyr while they always will. Us attacking Joseph Smith’s character is a losing battle IMO.

You’re probably right. The sad part is that it’s hard to convince them that his teachings were flawed if they refuse to see that his flawed character is the most convincing sign that he was not likely to have been led by God. Maybe the best approach would be to show them what the life of a truly heroic Saint is like, in contrast to his very poor example of sanctity. Perhaps a contemporary of his might be easier to compare. I have no idea who might fit that bill, but it’s the best idea I can come up with that might work.

 

[blueadept]

You’re probably right. The sad part is that it’s hard to convince them that his teachings were flawed if they refuse to see that his flawed character is the most convincing sign that he was not likely to have been led by God. Maybe the best approach would be to show them what the life of a truly heroic Saint is like, in contrast to his very poor example of sanctity. Perhaps a contemporary of his might be easier to compare. I have no idea who might fit that bill, but it’s the best idea I can come up with that might work.

When it comes to Joseph Smith, LDS tend to hold him to a very high regard even when it comes to his polygamous relationships. Many LDS faithful believe these relationships were honorable and that he was only sealed. The one relationship that always bugged me was Zina Huntington Jacobs. She was married to a faithful Mormon Henry Jacobs and had two children with Henry. She was then sealed to Joseph Smith and then sealed to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith was killed. She had a daughter by Brigham Young by the name of Eliza Young and all this is verifiable. The fact that he was sealed to faithful married women was the backbreaker for me and definitely not a saintly trait. But I guess that’s my issue. Oh well.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here are some of the devastating changes

Cherry picking out minor changes are not so devastating. Changes that change the nature of God, are.

 

[Lefty0908]

It would help their cause IMO if they could produce some type of physical evidence at least to ponder. Their best evidence for the BoM is their speculation of some stuff on the Arabian peninsula. I never gave it much credence since the remarkable part of their story is that Lehi could even build and make ships back then to make it the Americas. That’s a leap of faith the size of the Grand Canyon IMHO. I don’t believe God would make it that difficult for us to develop that faith. I prefer the physical evidence of the RCC in the form of the incorruptible saints. Faith of this nature is much easier to accept IMHO.

Since LDS members consider themselves as saints, I’'m waiting for them to show some incorruptible saints like the RCC has shown over the centuries.

How long do you think I’ll have to wait?..

Somehow I seem to be missing the “H” in IMHO. But that’s another matter.

Of course it was Nephi who built the ship, not Lehi, but I nak3 rypos (er, make typos) all the time, so no problem. The actual building and sailing of such a ship on a transoceanic voyage sometime around 600 B.C. seems to be the focus of Blue’s incredulity, because such things never happened “back then.”

In 1990, a very boring, two-volume research document was published by Research Press titled Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, by John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish. The volumes consist of 5,613 references to contact with the Americas from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia prior to the coming of Columbus.

Of course there’s a lunatic fringe in our society that likes to weigh-in on this subject, but this was a serious study done by serious scholars.

Marc K. Stengel reviewed the volumes in the Atlantic Monthly in January, 2000, saying that they “represent a dispassionate and comprehensive summary of the most serious diffusionist research and commentary to date.” Betty J. Meggers of the Smithsonian Institution considered the massive 2-volume set to be “an unparalleled view of the theoretical issues and magnitude of evidence for and against pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts” (her review is in Volume 1 of Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, edited by Stephen C. Jett of UC Davis).

These people seem to take seriously the possibilty that something like what is described in Book of Mormon could actually have taken place. So I’m not much inclined to have to apply Blue’s demand for Grand-Canyon-faith-leaping capabilities in order to believe Nephi’s story (heck, I can’t even rise to the grain-of-mustard-seed level).

And as John Adams continually tries to remind us, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

---

I appreciate and respect Catholic usage of the term “Saint.” However, it is not the only understanding of the word, and Blue doesn’t get to impose his definition on others and then mock them because they don’t conform.

Unarguably, the Hebrew, Amamaic, and Greek terms that are translated as “saint” imply one who is set apart, separate, and holy, so I understand the RCC usage and have no criticism of they way it is used by Catholics. But there are other ways to view the meaning of the word.

Latter-day Saints do not canonize or venerate the dead. We have no patron saints. Our usage of the term follows biblical precedents similar to that of the ancient Israelites who considered themselves to be a community of believers set apart from nonbelievers (“the congregation of the saints” in Ps. 89:5). Paul also used the term simply to refer to baptized members of the Church residing in Philippi (Phil. 1:1). So its meaning in scriptural usage is more broad than what Blue wants to impose on the Mormons. I guess I’m OK with conforming to scripture.

Sorry to have kept you waiting so long, Blue. I can only imagine how busy you must be.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Latter-day Saints do not canonize or venerate the dead. We have no patron saints. Our usage of the term follows biblical precedents similar to that of the ancient Israelites who considered themselves to be a community of believers set apart from nonbelievers (“the congregation of the saints” in Ps. 89:5). Paul also used the term to refer to baptized members of the Church residing in Philippi (Phil. 1:1). So its meaning in scriptural usage is more broad than what Blue wants to impose on the Mormons. I guess I’m OK with conforming to scripture. Sorry to have kept you waiting so long, Blue. I can only imagine how busy you must be.

Lefty, LDS are correct in the usage, but you are uninformed about “saint theology”. We believe in the “communion of saints” which is an explicit doctrine that describes the Church as the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom is comprised of all the saints, those living, dead and in purgatory. You’ll see sometimes a differentation made with a subtle use of capitalization. Saint, with a capital S referring to the Saints who are in the presence of God, in heaven, and saints, lower case s who would be…us.

Having been sanctified by Christ, we are all made saints at our baptism. The word saint coming from the Latin Sanctus, which means, holy. Through Jesus Christ we are made a holy people. This is also called sanctifying grace.

A careful distinction is made between us and the Saints in heaven, because while we have the gift of sanctifying grace, we are still among the living, where we are called to live what we are. All fail and fall short and so to say, hi I am a Saint, is a big whoa! Really, you think you’re that holy in the way in which you live? This is because a Saint in heaven is believed to be a Saint, present before God, because their life was lived in holiness. Not even a Saint would make that claim while living…we all are aware of our own weaknesses and our need for Jesus Christ.

When St Paul is speaking of and to the saints, he is speaking about or to the baptized. Those who have been sanctified by Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit. There have always been saints, and still are…

Hope that helps.

 

[blueadept]

Somehow I seem to be missing the “H” in IMHO. But that’s another matter.

H = Humble

Of course it was Nephi who built the ship, not Lehi, but I nak3 rypos (er, make typos) all the time, so no problem. The actual building and sailing of such a ship on a transoceanic voyage sometime around 600 B.C. seems to be the focus of Blue’s incredulity, because such things never happened “back then.”

In 1990, a very boring, two-volume research document was published by Research Press titled Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, by John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish. The volumes consist of 5,613 references to contact with the Americas from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia prior to the coming of Columbus.

Of course there’s a lunatic fringe in our society that likes to weigh-in on this subject, but this was a serious study done by serious scholars.

Marc K. Stengel reviewed the volumes in the Atlantic Monthly in January, 2000, saying that they “represent a dispassionate and comprehensive summary of the most serious diffusionist research and commentary to date.” Betty J. Meggers of the Smithsonian Institution considered the massive 2-volume set to be “an unparalleled view of the theoretical issues and magnitude of evidence for and against pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts” (her review is in Volume 1 of Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, edited by Stephen C. Jett of UC Davis).

These people seem to take seriously the possibilty that something like what is described in Book of Mormon could actually have taken place. So I’m not much inclined to have to apply Blue’s demand for Grand-Canyon-faith-leaping capabilities in order to believe Nephi’s story (heck, I can’t even rise to the grain-of-mustard-seed level).

And as John Adams continually tries to remind us, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

---

The best evidence is on the Arabian peninsula for the BoM. Every story should have a plausible beginning but I’m simply not sold since I’ve not seen similar evidence in the Americas. Show a feasible spot for Zarahemla and I’ll revisit the issue. Honestly, I hope to be open to reviewing such evidence and it’s not closed door for me.

I appreciate and respect Catholic usage of the term “Saint.” However, it is not the only understanding of the word, and Blue doesn’t get to impose his definition on others and then mock them because they don’t conform.

Unarguably, the Hebrew, Amamaic, and Greek terms that are translated as “saint” imply one who is set apart, separate, and holy, so I understand the RCC usage and have no criticism of they way it is used by Catholics. But there are other ways to view the meaning of the word.

Latter-day Saints do not canonize or venerate the dead. We have no patron saints. Our usage of the term follows biblical precedents similar to that of the ancient Israelites who considered themselves to be a community of believers set apart from nonbelievers (“the congregation of the saints” in Ps. 89:5). Paul also used the term simply to refer to baptized members of the Church residing in Philippi (Phil. 1:1). So its meaning in scriptural usage is more broad than what Blue wants to impose on the Mormons. I guess I’m OK with conforming to scripture.

I was referring to “Incorruptible Saints” which the RCC has a couple hundred of them. Here’s a link
listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-10-incorrupt-corpses/

I wasn’t trying to debate the term ‘saint’ which is a useless effort. We all are trying to be saints in following Christ. When I study ANY of the ‘incorruptible saints’, I feel they all lived Christ-like lives. If Mormons could produce similar ‘saints’, any one could take the time to review their lives to see what was Christ-like about them. That would definitely be evidence in favor of Mormonism.

My 2 cents

 

[RebeccaJ]

I wasn’t trying to debate the term ‘saint’ which is a useless effort. We all are trying to be saints in following Christ

.

When we say we are seeking to be holy (a saint), I think it aligns fairly well to the LDS teaching of perfection. There are differences of course, but for the most, we’re talking about the same thing.

 

[Telstar]

Somehow I seem to be missing the “H” in IMHO. But that’s another matter.

Perhaps it’s a problem with translation or definition?

Of course it was Nephi who built the ship, not Lehi, but I nak3 rypos (er, make typos) all the time, so no problem. The actual building and sailing of such a ship on a transoceanic voyage sometime around 600 B.C. seems to be the focus of Blue’s incredulity, because such things never happened “back then.”

Perhaps Nephi was the one that supposedly built the ‘ship’, but the story itself was about Lehi and his followers.For 146 years, readers of the Book of Mormon have in their mind’s eye traveled and camped with* Lehi** as he solemnly led his family from Jerusalem, trudged southward to the Red Sea, and moved periodically down the Red Sea coast until the group turned inland and crossed through “much affliction” before coming to a coastal area they said was bountiful.

Readers have contemplated that historic journey—where Lehi’s party stopped, where they built their ship, and where they landed in the western hemisphere, the land promised to Lehi.*

In 1990, a very boring, two-volume research document was published by Research Press… Of course there’s a lunatic fringe in our society that likes to weigh-in on this subject, but this was a serious study done by serious scholars.

Was it a study done from the LDS perspective, by LDS scholars, to try and prove the BoM, or was it a completely independent scientific study, done for other purposes?

These people seem to take seriously the possibilty that something like what is described in Book of Mormon could actually have taken place. So I’m not much inclined to have to apply Blue’s demand for Grand-Canyon-faith-leaping capabilities in order to believe Nephi’s story (heck, I can’t even rise to the grain-of-mustard-seed level).

There has certainly been some evidence of small migrations of people visiting the Americas from all over the globe. There is actual hard DNA and customs evidence found in various areas that supports it. But, there is no evidence to support the claims that anyone in the Americas bears any DNA connection to ancient Jewish tribes, which there should be if such a large population as described in the BoM ever existed, here. If there was, then the story might have a slim chance of at least being somewhat believable.

And as John Adams continually tries to remind us, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Even he knew that no matter how much you wish something to be true, if the facts don’t back it up, then it’s just a wasted wish. My Dad used to say, “Wish in one hand… ‘you know what’ in the other, see which one fills up first.”.

I appreciate and respect Catholic usage of the term “Saint.” However, it is not the only understanding of the word, and Blue doesn’t get to impose his definition on others and then mock them because they don’t conform.

Unarguably, the Hebrew, Amamaic, and Greek terms that are translated as “saint” imply one who is set apart, separate, and holy, so I understand the RCC usage and have no criticism of they way it is used by Catholics. But there are other ways to view the meaning of the word.

You might say that you understand the usage, but you have no real clue what a true Saint is. Key word: holy. Also, in many cases, they were true miracle workers, just like Jesus and the Apostles. Incorruptibles are those that have been exhumed to be moved to a different site, and their bodies were found to be as fresh as the day they were buried, or, with very little decay considering the amount of time that they were buried in the ground.

Latter-day Saints do not canonize or venerate the dead.

You really can’t tell me that LDS don’t venerate Joseph Smith, when you believe he’ll sit on the judgement seat, next to Jesus.

 

[Leegal]

Whatever became of the ancient record that had been buried?

He first saw the plates in 1823. At various points, from my little knowlege, the angel would not let JS have them. At some points between 1927 and 1929, JS had them (so he claimed) or alternatively the angel took them back, finally taking them back for the last time in 1829.

While in JS’ possession, the angel admonished that they not be shown to anyone, conveniently. Yet, some testified that they saw the plates; others testified that they hoisted a chest containing the plates.

JS had a somewhat “mystical” background (can’t think of a word). These visions and such were objections to his wife’s family to marrying him. The angel was not JS’ first experience with “seeing things.”

I’m not LDS.

 

[eo_chibears]

He first saw the plates in 1823. At various points, from my little knowlege, the angel would not let JS have them. At some points between 1927 and 1929, JS had them (so he claimed) or alternatively the angel took them back, finally taking them back for the last time in 1829.

While in JS’ possession, the angel admonished that they not be shown to anyone, conveniently. Yet, some testified that they saw the plates; others testified that they hoisted a chest containing the plates.

JS had a somewhat “mystical” background (can’t think of a word). These visions and such were objections to his wife’s family to marrying him. The angel was not JS’ first experience with “seeing things.”

I’m not LDS.

That’s interesting, seems pretty out there to me.

 

[eo_chibears]

I have asked this question to a couple of LDS members and never get a straight answer. I doubt you will on this forum either, but I hope so.

 

[campeador]

He first saw the plates in 1823. At various points, from my little knowlege, the angel would not let JS have them. At some points between 1927 and 1929, JS had them (so he claimed) or alternatively the angel took them back, finally taking them back for the last time in 1829.

While in JS’ possession, the angel admonished that they not be shown to anyone, conveniently. Yet, some testified that they saw the plates; others testified that they hoisted a chest containing the plates.

JS had a somewhat “mystical” background (can’t think of a word). These visions and such were objections to his wife’s family to marrying him. The angel was not JS’ first experience with “seeing things.”

I’m not LDS.

Words of Stephen Burnett, in a letter written April 15, 1838 to Lyman E. Johnson:
I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it—loth to give it up—but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire superstructure fell [in] a heap of ruins.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Of course it was Nephi who built the ship, not Lehi, but I nak3 rypos (er, make typos) all the time, so no problem.

Hello Lefty. Welcome to the forums. I make typos too. But I’ve never translated a divinely inspired document that was intended to define the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I’m just guessing that editors and publishers of the BOM spent more time on their text than you and I do on an email. I’m just saying… Of course, there are always changes being made to the english bible, but the changes have more to do with changes in translation from the original languages to english. As far as I understand it, no one has access to the original BOM tablets. So, it’s not really the same thing.

Lefty0908:

The actual building and sailing of such a ship on a transoceanic voyage sometime around 600 B.C. seems to be the focus of Blue’s incredulity, because such things never happened “back then.”

I think the point being made is that it’s incredibly unlikely that such an event actually happened, given what we do know about the time period. That - coupled with the lack of physical evidence supporting any of the events described in the BOM - makes a strong argument against the veracity of the BOM. I don’t know of any serious studies that have supported the historical accuracy of the BOM claim. The LDS response that I’ve seen to date has been limited to pious speculation about what may have been possible regarding oceanic travel, and the “burning bosom” proof. (BTW, I don’t discount the sincerity and piety of those who experience such burnings. But it’s no basis for argumentation for or against the veracity of the BOM)

Lefty0908:

In 1990, a very boring, two-volume research document was published by Research Press titled Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, by John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish. The volumes consist of 5,613 references to contact with the Americas from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia prior to the coming of Columbus.

And yet, none of these “references to contact” establish the claims of the BOM. At best, they support a conclusion that cross-atlantic travel was not impossible, but was highly unlikely.

Lefty0908:

These people seem to take seriously the possibilty that something like what is described in Book of Mormon could actually have taken place. So I’m not much inclined to have to apply Blue’s demand for Grand-Canyon-faith-leaping capabilities in order to believe Nephi’s story (heck, I can’t even rise to the grain-of-mustard-seed level).

Really? I think you are indeed taking some grand-canyon-sized leaps of faith to say that because one study suggests that pre-columbian travel (i.e. pre-1492) seems to have occurred to a small degree, that the BOM claim is correct - i.e. that hundreds of years before the Incarnation a group of israelites crossed the Atlantic to found an entire civilization that grew, thrived, declined, the self-destructed without leaving any physical traces. It’s a stretch for anyone to believe that without faith that is disconnected from reason.

Lefty0908:

And as John Adams continually tries to remind us, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

I think the problem with support for the BOM is the lack of any evidentiary facts that support its historical claims. I don’t know of any robust historical defense of its claims. If you know of one, please provide a citation or a link. I’d really like to read and consider it.

Lefty0908:

I appreciate and respect Catholic usage of the term “Saint.” However, it is not the only understanding of the word…

I agree that different people use the word to mean different things. But I don’t think that was the point of the prior post. I think the post was asking if the LDS Church experienced the kind of miraculous events that have surrounded some of the members of the Catholic Church who are recognized for living lives of heroic virtue; such as St. Francis, Therese of Lisieux, Padre Pio, Sr. Faustina Kowalska and others.

I seem to recall a story about a miraculous appearance of seagulls that saved the Salt Lake settlement from a locust swarm that would have devastated their crops. Also, a pious LDS legend about a farmer that supposedly uncovered the grave of a Nephite (or maybe a Lamanite) who was instantly resurrected and assumed into Heaven. But I don’t recall details. I’m not sure if this is what the earlier post was referring to. Perhaps not.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Peace,
Robert

 

[PodunkMommy]

When it comes to Joseph Smith, LDS tend to hold him to a very high regard even when it comes to his polygamous relationships. Many LDS faithful believe these relationships were honorable and that he was only sealed. The one relationship that always bugged me was Zina Huntington Jacobs. She was married to a faithful Mormon Henry Jacobs and had two children with Henry. She was then sealed to Joseph Smith and then sealed to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith was killed. She had a daughter by Brigham Young by the name of Eliza Young and all this is verifiable. The fact that he was sealed to faithful married women was the backbreaker for me and definitely not a saintly trait. But I guess that’s my issue. Oh well.

I’ve never really understood the whole “sealed” idea. Like the fact that a Mormon has to get married in the Temple but not just anybody can go in the Temple. For a parent it must hurt if their child is Mormon and they can’t even witness the wedding (if they want to).

Blessings.

 

[Leegal]

When it comes to Joseph Smith, LDS tend to hold him to a very high regard even when it comes to his polygamous relationships. Many LDS faithful believe these relationships were honorable and that he was only sealed. The one relationship that always bugged me was Zina Huntington Jacobs. She was married to a faithful Mormon Henry Jacobs and had two children with Henry. She was then sealed to Joseph Smith and then sealed to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith was killed. She had a daughter by Brigham Young by the name of Eliza Young and all this is verifiable. The fact that he was sealed to faithful married women was the backbreaker for me and definitely not a saintly trait. But I guess that’s my issue. Oh well.

And yet, even within the mainline Mormon Church there is schism. When JS dies, the Mormon Church we know todayfollowed Brigham Young as JS’ successor prophet, and into Utah. (I don’t know if I’m using the right words for succession).

But, there were those who rejected BY’s leadership. They stayed in Missouri. They are the RLDS or Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints. They changed their name in 2000 to Church of Christ, but they are the RLDS or those whose line was from JS. This faction later denied that polygamy and eternal marriage were the product of JS’ teachings and that BY conceived and implemented these changes on his own. At first they were disaffected with both JS and BY, but eventually settled on JS’ son as their leader, many years after the break.

Despite how one feels about the Mormon faith, it’s interesting to note that historically they broke into two factions and the Mormon Church we know as led by Brigham Young was not necessarily the first or only choice to succeed JS (so to speak), yet today it is the Mormon Church centered in Utah that we all have come to know. Some might claim there was a more rightful successor to Joseph Smith.

This has nothing to do with FLDS who are the fundamentalists and have received so much press in the last few years. Warren Jeffs and that family on TV are of other schisms entirely.

 

[Telstar]

It’s part of this direct quote from Brigham Young:
Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—“Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!” But it is true.
It certainly is a disturbing thought. You can read more here. It’s from the “Journal of Discourses: Volume 7: Intelligence, Etc.”, page 289. Although, I’m sure it’s just a passing remark, his ‘personal opinion’, that doesn’t mean anything… really.

 

[TheExorcist]

It’s part of this direct quote from Brigham Young:
Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—“Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!” But it is true.
It certainly is a disturbing thought. You can read more here. It’s from the “Journal of Discourses: Volume 7: Intelligence, Etc.”, page 289. Although, I’m sure it’s just a passing remark, his ‘personal opinion’, that doesn’t mean anything… really.

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public …” LoL :dancing:

 

[Leegal]

When it comes to Joseph Smith, LDS tend to hold him to a very high regard even when it comes to his polygamous relationships. Many LDS faithful believe these relationships were honorable and that he was only sealed. The one relationship that always bugged me was Zina Huntington Jacobs. She was married to a faithful Mormon Henry Jacobs and had two children with Henry. She was then sealed to Joseph Smith and then sealed to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith was killed. She had a daughter by Brigham Young by the name of Eliza Young and all this is verifiable. The fact that he was sealed to faithful married women was the backbreaker for me and definitely not a saintly trait. But I guess that’s my issue. Oh well.

Interesting to note though, the mainstream Mormon Church in Utah that we know is a part of a schism – the first. JS dies. The majority accept Brigham Young as the prophet successor (not sure of the correct term).

Another part, some already a bit disenchanted with JS and BY, break off and form the RLDS (Reconstructed Church of Latter Day Saints, but as of 2000 known as “Church of Christ”). The major group, BY’s faction, moves to Utah. The minority group, the RLDS, stays in Missouri. Both claim to be the Church. After some wrangling, years later, the RLDS proclaims JS’s son as the prophet successor.

The RLDS later claim that polygamy and eternal marriage were not a part of JS’ teachings and that was Brigham Young’s doing, not JS’.

The original break has nothing to do with FLDS such as those depicted on TV and the Warren Jeffs trial. That’s more schism of another kind.

But the mainstream LDS Church in Utah has another claimant.