LDS and ancient record...

  • Thread starter Thread starter eo_chibears
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Heavenly Father said at Christ’s baptism that ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him’.

Christ is the Word of God and there is no other word or revelation following Him, especially that condemning 2,000 years of faithful Christianity.

Apostasy means to renounce Christ and the Catholic Church exists in Christ and for Christ…
 
They practiced polyandry? I’d never heard that, it’s surprises me.
JS and friends would send someone off on a mission, and while he was gone, seduce his wife. Therefore some women were “married” to more than one man. I suspect it has something to do with David, Uriah, and Bathsheba.
 
I think we have. Many people, including me, have said they know sweet Mormon families who are charitable and moral - that’s good fruit. But you seem to imply that there are not faithful Catholic families who are wholesome and strong, to which I say ‘nonsense,’ I know many of those too. I believe many posters have pointed out the fruits of Catholicism: the 2,000 year history of saints, evangelists, miracles, charitable works in all parts of the world. LDS do not have ‘the upper hand’ in good fruits. But as I’ve said before, every convert I know has a similar story: “my life was a mess, and these people are so nice to me.” Your pointing out the good fruits of the members you know make me think you, too, fall in this category.
bz5,
WHERE have I implied there are not faithful Catholic families, who follow Christ in their word and deed?

Where have I said the Caholic Church does not also yield ‘good fruit’?

Stretching it further, where has any LDS on this forum made the above accusations?
 
bz5,
**WHERE **have I implied there are not faithful Catholic families, who follow Christ in their word and deed?

Where have I said the Caholic Church does not also yield ‘good fruit’?

Stretching it further, where has any LDS on this forum made the above accusations?
Perhaps there is excessive generalization going on here, Tony. Some of us have known LDS who make those assumptions. If you are an exception, :tiphat:
 
bz5,
**WHERE **have I implied there are not faithful Catholic families, who follow Christ in their word and deed?

Where have I said the Caholic Church does not also yield ‘good fruit’?

Stretching it further, where has any LDS on this forum made the above accusations?
By urging us to discuss the fruits of our faith (not the first time I’ve seen you mention fruits of the faith) I assumed you meant in contrast. If you didn’t, I’m glad to hear it and apologize to you.
 
They practiced polyandry? I’d never heard that, it’s surprises me.
On pages 15-16 of his book In Sacred Loneliness, Todd Compton wrote:
Code:
"Polyandry is one of the major problems found in Smith’s polygamy and many questions surround it. Why did he at first primarily prefer polyandrous marriages?... In the past, polyandry has often been ignored or glossed over, but if these women merit serious attention, the topic cannot be overlooked... A common misconception concerning Joseph Smith’s polyandry is that he participated in only one or two such unusual unions. In fact, fully one-third of his plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them. If one superimposes a chronological perspective, one sees that of Smith’s first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous. So in this early period polyandry was the norm, not the anomaly... Polyandry might be easier to understand if one viewed these marriages to Smith as a sort of de facto divorce with the first husband. However, none of these women divorced their ‘first husbands’ while Smith was alive and all of them continued to live with their civil spouses while married to Smith... In the eleven certain polyandrous marriages, only three of the husbands were non-Mormon (Lightner, Sayers, and Cleveland) and only one was disaffected (Buell). All other husbands were in good standing in the church at the time Joseph married their wives. Many were prominent church leaders and close friends of Smith. George W. Harris was a high councilor... a position equivalent to that of a twentieth-century general authority. Henry Jacobs was a devoted friend of Joseph and a faithful missionary. Orson Hyde was an apostle on his mission to Palestine when Smith married his wife. Johathan Holmes was one of Smith’s bodyguards... Windsor Lyon was a member in good standing when Smith united with Sylvia Lyon, and he loaned the prophet money after the marriage. David Sessions was a devout Latter-day Saint.

"These data suggest that Joseph may have married these women, often, not because they were married to non-members but because they were married to faithful Latter-day Saints who were his devoted friends. This again suggests that the men knew about the marriages and permitted them.

"Another theory is that Joseph married polyandrously when the marriage was unhappy. If this were true, it would have been easy for the woman to divorce her husband, then marry Smith. But none of these women did so; some of them stayed with their ‘first husbands’ until death. In the case of Zina Huntington Jacobs and Henry Jacobs—often used as an example of Smith marrying a woman whose marriage was unhappy—the Mormon leader married her just seven months after she married Jacobs, and then she stayed with Jacobs for years after Smith’s death. Then the separation was forced when Brigham Young (who had married Zina polyandrously in the Nauvoo temple) sent Jacobs on a mission to England and began living with Zina himself." (In Sacred Loneliness, pages 15-16)
continued…
 
By urging us to discuss the fruits of our faith (not the first time I’ve seen you mention fruits of the faith) I assumed you meant in contrast. If you didn’t, I’m glad to hear it and apologize to you.
Thanks for clarifying.
While I have not seen it here, I won’t deny there are LDS who are be prideful, and closed minded to the truth and fruit of other believers. I promise to speak out against such bigotry when I come across it.
 
In the fourth chapter of his book Todd Compton gives a great deal of information regarding Joseph Smith’s polyandrous relationship with Zina Diantha Huntington:
Code:
"On February 2, 1846, in an inner room in the Nauvoo temple, Zina Huntington Jacobs stood by the side of Brigham Young, presiding apostle and de facto president of the Mormon church... Somewhat apart stood Henry B. Jacobs, whom Zina had married in a civil ceremony in March 1841. She was now seven months pregnant with their second child... That Henry Bailey was inside the temple shows that he was considered a faithful, worthy Latter-day Saint.

"Zina and Brigham turned toward each other and Kimball sealed (married) Zina to Joseph Smith for eternity; Brigham stood proxy for the dead prophet, answering in his stead when the ceremony required a response... as was customary in temple proxy marriages, Zina and Brigham turned to each other and were sealed to each other for time. Once again Henry stood as witness. One suspects that none of the four participants in these ceremonies understood their full significance. Henry and Zina probably felt that they would continue living together as husband and wife, as they had during Joseph Smith’s life. Young had married some women by proxy with whom he never lived... But Brigham Young would eventually decide that Zina must become his wife fully, and the story of Zina Huntington would run its enigmatic course.

"Zina... was a polyandrous plural wife of both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It is well documented that she married Henry Jacobs in March 1841 and continued to live with him until May 1846, bearing him two children... It is also well documented that Zina married Joseph Smith in October 1841 and Brigham Young in February 1846. While ‘official’ Mormon biographies have Zina marrying Smith and Young after she left Henry, her marriages are so well documented that one is forced to reject this sequence and confront the issue of Nauvoo polyandry... as was the case with many of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, Zina lived in his house before her marriage to him... Apparently in the midst of Henry Jacobs’s suit, Joseph Smith taught Zina the principle of plural marriage and then proposed to her. One can only imagine the shock this must have caused her. The ‘cult of true womanhood’ in nineteenth-century America required that a woman live by the ideals of purity, piety, domesticity, and submissiveness; and Smith’s new doctrine offended against domesticity (the sanctity of the home), piety (typical American religious mores), and purity (the belief that sexuality should be reserved for monogamous Christian marriage). So it is not surprising that despite her religious reverence for the Mormon leader, she either flatly rejected his proposals or put him off. Furthermore, she was probably in love with Jacobs, and may have revered Joseph’s wife Emma, whom she probably realized would be unsympathetic to an extramonogamous union... Smith was always persistent in his marriage proposals, and rejections usually moved him to further effort, so he continued to press his suit with Zina at the same time that she was courting Henry. And Smith usually expressed his polygamous proposals in terms of prophetic commandments. In addition to the religious dilemmas she faced, Zina was also choosing between two men, both of whom she cared for in different ways. In early 1841 Zina made here choice: she would marry Henry Jacobs, her romantic soulmate. The engagement was announced. By making this decision, she probably felt that she had put an end to Smith’s suit and to the specter of polygamy in her life. It is not known whether Henry knew that Smith had also proposed to Zina, but it is known that he was a close friend and disciple of Smith. According to family tradition, as the day of marriage approached, Henry and/or Zina asked Smith to perform the marriage, and he agreed... but Smith did not appear, so they turned to John C. Bennett... to officiate. Zina must have felt a sense of relief and finality as she and Henry exchanged vows and began their married life in Nauvoo.

"However, Zina learned soon afterwards, undoubtedly to her complete astonishment, that Smith had not given up. Again according to family tradition, she and Henry saw Smith soon after the marriage and ‘asked why he had not come... he told them the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.’ Once again Zina was plunged into a quandary. Smith told them that God had commanded him to marry her. However, he apparently also told them they could continue to live together as husband and wife. According to family tradition, Henry accepted this, but Zina continued to struggle. If polygyny offended against the American cult of true womanhood, polyandry offended even more. Nevertheless... submissiveness required her to obey. Disobeying Smith would also be an offense against Mormon piety. So polygamy divided the cult of true woman hood against itself. If a woman interpreted Smith’s polygyny and polyandry as sacred, she would become entirely devoted to the new system... Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose ‘his position and his life.’ Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced... Apparently, Henry knew of the marriage and accepted it. He believed that ‘whatever the prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man’... Zina and Henry stayed married, cohabiting, throughout Smith’s life.
 
Thus Zina’s explanation for her marriage to Smith may be a ‘revision’ of history to gloss over her simultaneous marriage to both men. It is certain that the marriage was not enough to cause the couple to stop living together during Smith’s lifetime, or for years after his death… for reasons that are not completely clear, Brigham Young pressed his suit with Zina. According to family traditions, ‘President Young told Zina D. if she would marry him she would be in a higher glory.’… Brigham approached her after Smith’s death and she apparently married him for time in September 1844. Nevertheless, she remained married and cohabiting with Jacobs, which was consistent with Smith’s practice of polyandry… At Winter Quarters the next development in Zina’s marriage history took place: she began to live openly as Brigham Young’s wife. She later wrote, ‘Those days of trial and grief [at Mt. Pisgah] were succeeded by my journey to Winter quarters, where in due time I arrived, and was welcomed by President Young into his family.’ This method of practicing polyandry contrasted sharply with Joseph Smith’s. Smith had never required any of his polyandrous wives to leave their first husbands and never lived openly with any of his polyandrous wives. Another problematic aspect of Zina’s relationship to Young was that they apparently did not write Henry and tell him of the development. (In Sacred Loneliness, pages 71-72, 78-81, 84, 90)
Code:
Many years ago we searched through the Mormon Church’s publication Journal of Discourses and found a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle by Jedediah M. Grant, second counselor to Brigham Young. In this sermon, delivered February 19, 1854, Jedediah Grant made these weird comments:

"There were quite a majority, I believe, in the days of Joseph, who believed he had no right to dictate in temporal matters, in farms, houses, merchandize, gold, silver, &c.; and they were tried on various points.

"When the family organization was revealed from heaven—the patriarchal order of God, and Joseph began, on the right and on the left, to add to his family, what a quaking there was in Israel. Says one brother to another, ‘Joseph says all covenants are done away, and none are binding but the new covenants; now suppose Joseph should come and say he wanted your wife, what would you say to that?’ ‘I would tell him to go to hell.’ This was the spirit of many in the early days of this Church... If Joseph had a right to dictate me in relation to salvation, in relation to a hereafter, he had a right to dictate me in relation to all my earthly affairs, in relation to the treasures of the earth, and in relation to the earth itself... What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, ‘Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God.’ Or if he came and said, ‘I want your wife?’ ‘O yes,’ he would say, ‘here she is, there are plenty more.’... Did the Prophet Joseph want every man’s wife he asked for? He did not, but in that thing was the grand thread of the Priesthood developed. The grand object in view was to try the people of God, to see what was in them. If such a man of God should come to me and say, ‘I want your gold and silver, or your wives,’ I should say,’ Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got.’ " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, pages 13-14) 

Todd Compton made this observation regarding Jedediah Grant’s sermon:

"Grant disapproves of those who were asked to give up their wives and refused... He states that Smith did not want every wife he asked for, which implies that he wanted some of them... the fact that at least eleven women were married to Joseph polyandrously, including the wife of prominent apostle Orson Hyde, shows that in many cases Joseph was not simply asking for wives as a test of loyalty; sometimes the test included giving up the wife. (In Sacred Loneliness, pages 18-19)
(Quoted from Issue 94 of the Salt Lake Messenger)
 
Paul,
Does the book mention that Brigham and Zina had a child named Zina Young?
 
By urging us to discuss the fruits of our faith (not the first time I’ve seen you mention fruits of the faith) I assumed you meant in contrast. If you didn’t, I’m glad to hear it and apologize to you.
Tony likes to talk about the “fruits” of Mormonism but would not dare to actually contrast them with the fruits of Catholicism. He is just hoping we Catholics are ignorant of the HUGE contribution that the Catholic Church has made to humanity compared to the Mormon Church.

Thanks for reminding us of the GREAT contribution the Catholic Church has made to humanity.
 
Tony likes to talk about the “fruits” of Mormonism but would not dare to actually contrast them with the fruits of Catholicism. He is just hoping we Catholics are ignorant of the HUGE contribution that the Catholic Church has made to humanity compared to the Mormon Church.

Thanks for reminding us of the GREAT contribution the Catholic Church has made to humanity.
I think stephen is here to pick fights, with the blanket assertaions he makes.
  • Yes, I’m happy to discuss the fruits of being LDS. I do so to counter negative claims I read here.
  • No, I’m not interested in acting like a 5 yr old, and try measure who has a bigger ‘stick’
Please provide **one example **where I’ve denigrated the Saints or historical contribution of the Catholic Church.
 
PepBandMom,

(My daughter gets to go with her junior high school symphonic band, to Chicago to play in front of a group of junior high school and high school band administrators and devotees and some of the composers of the pieces they will be playing, next week. It is one of the best junior high symphonic bands in at least the western United States, and perhaps the country. She enjoys playing percussion, particularly the chimes. We are very grateful for the dedicated teachers and administrators, and for the students and their parents with all the support and good discipline.)

Looking at what you presented, please note again that what is being described and what were looked at were the records pertaining to who got paid as the judge and as the constable.

Those payments involved (1) $2.68 paid to the judge because the case was on his docket. It has no bearing whatsoever as to what his verdict was. It means he had a case on his docket that meant he was due to receive his normal fee for even looking at the case, hearing it. It was for what was on the books as a “misdemeanor” charge, if it held up in court–but he got paid whether he would have presented a verdict of “innocent” or a verdict of “guilty as charged”. There is no evidence presented of a verdict in the case.

(2) “The Constable’s bill of Philip M. DeZeng” shows merely that a constable was involved in “arresting and keeping Joseph Smith, notifying two justices, subpoenaing 12 witnesses, as well as a mittimus charge for 10 miles travel ‘to take him,’”–all of which are actions that a constable is paid to do after a charge has been presented as needing to be acted upon. The constable doesn’t decide on the innocence or guilt of the accused–his job is to round up the defendant, round up the accusers and any witnesses, and it looks like he had to contact two judges–for which he submitted his normal bill for doing his job.
The document was a conviction and fine. You can try all you want to make it something different, but, as an attorney, I will tell you it was a conviction.

Be Blessed
 
Parker, as I do not wish to be a pest, I think it safe to declare, by now, that you have no cites to support your claims in that earlier post to which I demanded cites days ago. Having determined that, it is then safe to conclude you were wrong about your comments.

Thank you.

Be Blessed
 
The document was a conviction and fine. You can try all you want to make it something different, but, as an attorney, I will tell you it was a conviction.

Be Blessed
TexanKnight,

How do you arrive at the conclusion from any of those sources, that “it was a conviction”? It makes not the slightest difference your personal background. What counts is what the historical documents conclusively show or don’t conclusively show, and they don’t show whether there was a conviction or not.
 
Parker, as I do not wish to be a pest, I think it safe to declare, by now, that you have no cites to support your claims in that earlier post to which I demanded cites days ago. Having determined that, it is then safe to conclude you were wrong about your comments.

Thank you.

Be Blessed
TexanKnight,

I did answer your question about the New York law that was on the books in 1826. I gave my opinion about the law and thus about the legal system at the time and place.
 
TexanKnight,

How do you arrive at the conclusion from any of those sources, that “it was a conviction”? It makes not the slightest difference your personal background. What counts is what the historical documents conclusively show or don’t conclusively show, and they don’t show whether there was a conviction or not.
I have seen past convictions before. Studied them in law school.

He was a convicted criminal. His crime was one of moral turpitude.

Your doubts and dancing cannot change that.
 
TexanKnight,

I did answer your question about the New York law that was on the books in 1826. I gave my opinion about the law and thus about the legal system at the time and place.
Actually, you didn’t. Nor did you respond to my other CFRs. It is ok. I have moved on with the knowledge you cannot support your contentions.

It is ok. It is behind us. I will hope, Brother Parker, that, in the future, you will be more accurate with your comments.

I wish for you and yours a Very Merry Christmas.

Be Blessed
 
I have seen past convictions before. Studied them in law school.

Your doubts and dancing cannot change that.
Texan,

There was no need for “dancing”. You cannot show that there was a conviction based on that evidence.

'Bye.
 
TexanKnight,

How do you arrive at the conclusion from any of those sources, that “it was a conviction”? It makes not the slightest difference your personal background. What counts is what the historical documents conclusively show or don’t conclusively show, and they don’t show whether there was a conviction or not.
While I agree that it is a conviction, it doesn’t really matter. Here is the testimony of Emma Smith’s father, Mr. Hale:
I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called “money diggers;” and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended to discover minerals and hidden treasure. His appearance at this time, was that of a careless young man—not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to his father. Smith, and his father, with several other “money-diggers” boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards, many years since. Young Smith gave the “money-diggers” great encouragement, at first, but when they had arrived in digging, to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be found—he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then became discouraged, and soon after dispersed. This took place about the 17th of November, 1825; . . .
After these occurrences, young Smith made several visits at my house, and at length asked my consent to his marrying my daughter Emma. This I refused, and gave my reasons for so doing; some of which were, that he was a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve; he then left the place. Not long after this, he returned, and while I was absent from home, carried off my daughter, into the state of New York, where they were married without my approbation or consent
What this shows is that Joseph Smith was pulling his “peep stone in the hat” trick years before he claimed to translate the Book of Mormon by the same means. It also makes clear that Joseph Smith was a dishonorable young man prone to sneaking around and preying on vulnerable young women.

All this took place after the alleged First Vision, during the time God and the angel Moroni were supposedly grooming Joseph to be a prophet, seer and revelator.

It does not paint a picture of “the man who communed with Jehovah” - more like a crook in league with the devil.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top