Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I disagree that there were adulterous relationships involved. Some of the “spiritual sealings” to women were not involving a physical relationship. That is what I meant by the doctrine getting revealed a little at a time about what it meant to have a “sealing ordinance” done involving connecting families.

OK. So Joseph Smith only married and had sexual intercourse with single women? What was God’s purpose in having these marriages and physical relationships? Was the test “Do you love me more than your fidelity to your wife?” and to Emma, “Do you love me more than your husband’s fidelity? Will you allow your husband to engage in a sacred physical union with another woman?” I guess I have the same problem believing that God would create this kind of test when he clearly set up marriage between one man and one woman?

The already married women that he subsequently also married and was sealed to was only for connecting the families? Where is the “test of faith” in that? And how does that not extrapolate then for sealing every family with every other family on the planet? Or is that what you meant by imperfect? Joseph wasn’t really supposed to be doing the sealings this way - he just didn’t understand or didn’t have the full revelation?

I think he was moving forward with what he had been commanded but yet still figuring out the details of what God was revealing about the “sealing” ordinance. So that is why other men could allow their wife to be “sealed” to Joseph Smith. They were viewing the ordinance as making one big family of God–not of entitling an adulterous relationship, and Joseph Smith didn’t have those kinds of relationships with married women.

OK. I’ll have to take your word for it until someone proves otherwise.

 

[ParkerD]

OK. So Joseph Smith only married and had sexual intercourse with single women? What was God’s purpose in having these marriages and physical relationships? Was the test “Do you love me more than your fidelity to your wife?” and to Emma, “Do you love me more than your husband’s fidelity? Will you allow your husband to engage in a sacred physical union with another woman?” I guess I have the same problem believing that God would create this kind of test when he clearly set up marriage between one man and one woman?

The already married women that he subsequently also married and was sealed to was only for connecting the families? Where is the “test of faith” in that? And how does that not extrapolate then for sealing every family with every other family on the planet? Or is that what you meant by imperfect? Joseph wasn’t really supposed to be doing the sealings this way - he just didn’t understand or didn’t have the full revelation?

OK. I’ll have to take your word for it until someone proves otherwise.

Jay53,
I only have a brief moment since I’m needing to spend time at my dad’s today just in from a hospital stay. I would say that you were on the right track with your questions in the first paragraph above. The fact that Joseph Smith did not publicize that he had received such a revelation, I would conclude, shows that he was not inclined to go “whole hog” into such a doctrinal practice of plural marriage with single women.

The evidence is that he was very reluctant, to the point of needing to be threatened by an angel with a drawn sword, in vision. It also became a trial of faith for women, and for the church members generally, and many of the men and some of the women could not believe it possible, and instead began gossiping about the whole thing and William Law eventually led a revolt against Joseph Smith. (Now, God would have known the very thing would happen that did happen, and I suppose Joseph Smith could have had a premonition about how plural marriage would become the final stress-point for causing a “Judas in the midst of the saints” to foment a revolt–but Joseph did it anyway. He followed God’s instruction. This was an Abrahamic kind of test in that way. No matter consequences that would be predictably dire for himself and even for Emma and his children, if God said it needed to be done, then Joseph needed to obey God.)

As to the sealings with married women, the way revelation has worked is not always like how the Mosaic law was written–complete doctrine all at once. It had more to do with “asking the right questions”, and thus a doctrine was not complete all at once, but revealed “line upon line”–and the sealing of families together through a “marriage sealing” was perhaps misunderstanding how the sealing of ancestors would eventually have everyone sealed back through the generations to Adam and Eve.

Have a good evening, and peace to all, with hopefully a great deal of kindness in our hearts. Thanks for the probing questions, by the way.

 

[hosemonkey]

The evidence is that he was very reluctant, to the point of needing to be threatened by an angel with a drawn sword, in vision.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I only have a brief moment since I’m needing to spend time at my dad’s today just in from a hospital stay. I would say that you were on the right track with your questions in the first paragraph above. The fact that Joseph Smith did not publicize that he had received such a revelation, I would conclude, shows that he was not inclined to go “whole hog” into such a doctrinal practice of plural marriage with single women.

The evidence is that he was very reluctant, to the point of needing to be threatened by an angel with a drawn sword, in vision. It also became a trial of faith for women, and for the church members generally, and many of the men and some of the women could not believe it possible, and instead began gossiping about the whole thing and William Law eventually led a revolt against Joseph Smith. (Now, God would have known the very thing would happen that did happen, and I suppose Joseph Smith could have had a premonition about how plural marriage would become the final stress-point for causing a “Judas in the midst of the saints” to foment a revolt–but Joseph did it anyway. He followed God’s instruction. This was an Abrahamic kind of test in that way. No matter consequences that would be predictably dire for himself and even for Emma and his children, if God said it needed to be done, then Joseph needed to obey God.)

As to the sealings with married women, the way revelation has worked is not always like how the Mosaic law was written–complete doctrine all at once. It had more to do with “asking the right questions”, and thus a doctrine was not complete all at once, but revealed “line upon line”–and the sealing of families together through a “marriage sealing” was perhaps misunderstanding how the sealing of ancestors would eventually have everyone sealed back through the generations to Adam and Eve.

Have a good evening, and peace to all, with hopefully a great deal of kindness in our hearts. Thanks for the probing questions, by the way.

Thank you for your post. I hope that your Dad is well. Have a good evening!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Timeline of Joseph Smith’s polygamy.

 

[PaulDupre]

Timeline of Joseph Smith’s polygamy.

I don’t know how anyone can read those things and believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God.

I remember being astounded when in 1984 I first read this statement made by Joseph in a letter to 19 year-old Nancy Rigdon meant to convince her to be his plural wife:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. … Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. … even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”

…and this letter to Newel K. Whitney’s daughter Sarah Ann to arrange an intimate tryst:

“… the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. … Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. … I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith.”

Only the totally brainwashed would not be repulsed by this despicable creep.

I personally would not trust any believing Mormon for precisely this reason. If their moral compass is so broken that they can accept Smith’s fornication, adultery and lying as “from God” and even praiseworthy, then they cannot be trusted under any circumstance whatsoever.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t know how anyone can read those things and believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God.

I remember being astounded when in 1984 I first read this statement made by Joseph in a letter to 19 year-old Nancy Rigdon meant to convince her to be his plural wife:

Well said!
Their entire belief system is built upon fraud and deception. Would I buy a used car from the likes of Joseph Smith, much less trust my eternal salvation to him? I don’t think so. And no entrance to heaven without his permission? ROTFLMAO!!

 

[Catholic_to_LDS]

ok…many of you have given alot of info about the sins of Joseph Smith. But while following this thread, I did some brief looking into the history of past Popes. I found adultery, murder, and sooo many sins in their past. Should I look at these past Popes and conclude that the Catholic church is as corrupt as the media and some history books make it out to be. It would crazy to think that the sins of one pope would be brought upoun the church. There were practices in the darkl ages that you don’t do now…just a thought.

 

[Jesse_Duran]

ok…many of you have given alot of info about the sins of Joseph Smith. But while following this thread, I did some brief looking into the history of past Popes. I found adultery, murder, and sooo many sins in their past. Should I look at these past Popes and conclude that the Catholic church is as corrupt as the media and some history books make it out to be. It would crazy to think that the sins of one pope would be brought upoun the church. There were practices in the darkl ages that you don’t do now…just a thought.

I believe you are going off subject. We are talking about why you accept John Smith, and I don’t think you have any evidence of such things??

 

[hosemonkey]

ok…many of you have given alot of info about the sins of Joseph Smith. But while following this thread, I did some brief looking into the history of past Popes. I found adultery, murder, and sooo many sins in their past. Should I look at these past Popes and conclude that the Catholic church is as corrupt as the media and some history books make it out to be. It would crazy to think that the sins of one pope would be brought upoun the church. There were practices in the darkl ages that you don’t do now…just a thought.

The Catholic Church does not rise or fall upon the alleged sins and misdemeanors of past Popes. The Catholic Church rests upon Jesus Christ Himself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Their human failings have nothing to do with the truth or ligitimacy of the Church founded not by man, but by Christ Himself. The entire truth and credibility of mormonism rests upon the truth and credibility of Joseph Smith, who was a liar and a fraud and an adulterer. Joseph Smith has no credibility, ergo: the mormon organization has no credibility.

 

[Jesse_Duran]

The Catholic Church does not rise or fall upon the alleged sins and misdemeanors of past Popes. The Catholic Church rests upon Jesus Christ Himself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Their human failings have nothing to do with the truth or ligitimacy of the Church founded not by man, but by Christ Himself. The entire truth and credibility of mormonism rests upon the truth and credibility of Joseph Smith, who was a liar and a fraud and an adulterer. Joseph Smith has no credibility, ergo: the mormon organization has no credibility.

Thanks I agree, the Mormon religion is based on this Joseph Smith, and if he gets proved wrong (which is quit clearly) than the Mormon religion as a whole is a fraud.

 

[aspirant]

There have been some heinous popes. We do not consider popes impeccable.

Pope Alexander VI comes to mind. Alexander VI was notoriously bad and immensely unpopular. At the time of his death, many Catholics at the time refused to believe that God would allow him the dignity of a natural death. The priests of St. Peter’s Basilica refused to accept the body for burial until they were compelled. Only four prelates attended the Requiem Mass. Pope Pius III reportedly forbade the saying of a Mass for the repose of his soul. After a short stay, Alexander’s body was removed from the crypts of St. Peter’s.

Yet as horrific as he was, we do not find Alexander VI exercising his teaching authority to promote doctrine or moral teaching contrary to the established doctrine or morality of the Church. It was widely believed that he obtained the papacy through simony, and though it cannot be proven I have no reason to doubt he tried, but he did not thereafter reverse the Church’s condemnation of simony. He had many mistresses and was reported to have sponsored “wild orgies” (an accusation perhaps exaggerated, but possibly true) but he did not reverse the Church’s teaching regarding the virtues of moderation and chastity. He even engaged, based on what I’ve read, in theft and murder, yet he never reversed the Church’s condemnation of these sins.

Many Catholics, when considering these things, regard them as evidence of the Catholic Church’s indefectibile nature, guaranteed by God.

Peter Kreeft has recalled, for example, that when he was considering becoming Catholic his friends tried everything to prevent his doing so. Among other things, they encouraged him to read Boccacio’s Decameron, hoping that knowledge of the corruption of many Catholic leaders would dissuade him. It had the opposite effect on Kreeft, as it does on a character in one of the stories.

The story goes that two men of Paris were very good friends: Jehannot was Catholic, Abraham Jewish. Jehannot wants Abraham to receive the Gospel, and very nearly convinces him. But Abraham wants to visit Rome first. No, Jehannot thinks, if he goes to Rome and sees the evils there, all is lost! But Abraham will not be dissuaded. He goes to Rome, and he sees all its wickedness firsthand. When his friend returns, Jehannot assumes any hope of Abraham’s conversion is dead. But Abraham immediately requests baptism. How can this be? Abraham tells Jehannot that he has seen everything and “To the best of my judgment, your Pastor, and by consequence everyone around him, devote all their zeal and ingenuity and subtlety to devise how best and most speedily they may bring the Christian religion to nought and banish it from the world!” Their utter failure to demolish Christianity, their failure even to prevent its growth, Abraham says, is testimony to its divine origin. It must be, he says, “more true and holy than any other [religion, and have] the Holy Spirit for its foundation and support… Go we then to the church, and there according to the traditional rite of your holy faith left me receive baptism!”

 

[twopekinguys]

I believe you are going off subject. We are talking about why you accept John Smith, and I don’t think you have any evidence of such things??

Exactly

 

[PaulDupre]

ok…many of you have given alot of info about the sins of Joseph Smith. But while following this thread, I did some brief looking into the history of past Popes. I found adultery, murder, and sooo many sins in their past. Should I look at these past Popes and conclude that the Catholic church is as corrupt as the media and some history books make it out to be. It would crazy to think that the sins of one pope would be brought upoun the church. There were practices in the darkl ages that you don’t do now…just a thought.

There is a big difference. The popes who sinned were disobeying Catholic teaching. They knew they were doing wrong and they and were condemned for it and stand condemned for it still. Those sinful popes never taught that their sinful behavior was not sinful. We Catholics today still recognize that those popes were sinful.

When Joseph Smith did his heinous acts, he taught that he was doing good; in fact he taught that God had told him to do those things. He taught that to his followers and they believed it and did the same. Mormons still believe it. They really believe that when Joseph…

seduced 14 year-old girls
married other men’s wives
promised salvation to parents if they would give him their young daughters to bed
told his young victims that “what is wrong at some times is right at other times”
sneaked around in the night having affairs while his wife was out of town
married a mother and her daughter
married two pair of sisters
and lied to his wife and to the public about all of it

…that he was being heroic and righteous and following the will of God.

That’s the difference. Do you understand?

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

 

[hosemonkey]

D’accord! What is truly amazing is the fact that in over two millenia and with the great number of men who have been Pope, given the frality of human nature, that the Church has had a far greater number of saints than it has sinners and that if the Church had not been of God, it would have become just another footnote in history. Thank God that the Church is built upon Christ and not upon fallible humans like Joseph Smith.

 

[AMDGtoo]

D’accord! What is truly amazing is the fact that in over two millenia and with the great number of men who have been Pope, given the frality of human nature, that the Church has had a far greater number of saints than it has sinners and that if the Church had not been of God, it would have become just another footnote in history. Thank God that the Church is built upon Christ and not upon fallible humans like Joseph Smith.

Agreed!

 

[dianaiad]

I actually just wrote this out of concern and agravation. I don’t really think I was looking to argue. There’s no point in arguing, I believe they already know they’re wrong.

Really?

That would make us all a bunch of real hypocrites, wouldn’t it? Do you really want to go there?

M’goodness, you have a very low opinion of every single Mormon if you think we honestly stick to a belief system we 'know" is wrong. I mean, really…why would any of us do that? Think about it; Mormons are laughed at, mocked, discriminated against…look what happened to Mitt Romney; he wanted to be President rather badly, y’know, and one of the biggest reasons he didn’t get nominated was because he was a Mormon. Boy, did everybody have a good time with his religion!

(Of course, that could be because he was a Republican and a Mormon. Harry Reid doesn’t seem to have a problem combining politics and Mormonism…)

Do you really believe that, if he ‘knew’ that he was wrong about it, that he wouldn’t have done something about it a long time ago?

Even Joseph Smith went through some very nasty times because he didn’t change his beliefs. After all, he wasn’t just murdered–he was tarred and feathered (as a direct result of which his infant son died), he was jailed many times, beaten…he certainly died broke.

Most of his followers lost their homes more than once, and were driven from one city to another, from one state to another, and eventually out of the nation all together…do you REALLY think they would have put up with all that if they 'knew they were wrong?"

Mr. Z…we may BE wrong. You certainly think we are. However, please do us the courtesy of accepting that WE BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY WE DO. We really do…or we would leave, find another religion and believe THAT.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow…

So, let me get this straight, it doesn’t matter what Jesus did, it matters what john smith did much latter. Ok now I have my facts straight.

Actually, we could care less what john smith did. It’s not like he actually got Pocahantas at the end, anyway, is it?

I could have sworn I read somewhere that it only matters what Jesus did. Can someone please give me a hand here i am completely confused now.

True. I do see a little confusion there. Worry not, though. Not that I expect you to actually believe anything a MORMON says about this, but it IS what Jesus did that matters.

 

[dianaiad]

Set aside all of the issues you may have with the LDS faith. Set aside everything you know aout Joseph Smith. Set all that aside for one second. And, if you are Mormon, set that aside, too.

Now, in the most non-specific terms possible, why should ANYONE accept anything that anyone else said was told to them by God or an Angel when no one else was told the same thing?

Oh, I dunno…you might want to ask Moses that.

Or Paul.

 

[hosemonkey]

Oh, I dunno…you might want to ask Moses that.

Or Paul.

Putting Joseph Smith into the same league as Moses or St. Paul is laughable.