Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[tundramom]

Hi, Xavierlives,
Did you notice that Mr Zetterlund is age 16? (Hi, Jared.)

I haven’t read through the whole thread yet, but what does Jared being 16 have to do with anything? Parker, are you insinuating that he cannot possibly be educated/old enough to contribute to a conversation?

Funny when your “prophet” Joseph Smith supposedly was only 14 in the “sacred” grove.

Steph

 

[ParkerD]

I haven’t read through the whole thread yet, but what does Jared being 16 have to do with anything? Parker, are you insinuating that he cannot possibly be educated/old enough to contribute to a conversation?

Funny when your “prophet” Joseph Smith supposedly was only 14 in the “sacred” grove.

Steph

Tundramom,
I hope you are having a good day. No–I just pointed out his age because he had called himself “Mr Zunderland” and yet was only 16. I actually found his posts quite probing and had a great deal of thought behind them.

 

[twopekinguys]

Tundramom,
I hope you are having a good day. No–I just pointed out his age because he had called himself “Mr Zunderland” and yet was only 16. I actually found his posts quite probing and had a great deal of thought behind them.

You do understand the differences between the title of “Master” vs “Mister” right.

A Male Child over the age of 13 is technically a “Mister”, and a child under that age is a “Master”.

It is a form of etiquette that has rather fallen by the wayside, but it is valid.

Ages and titles can vary by country, but this is the US standard.

Just a lesson for the day,

 

[Jay53]

What is the significance of Joseph Smith being sealed to multiple women? Why is/was that necessary and what ramifications does it have (to Joseph Smith, to Emma and to the other women and their husbands) in the Mormon view of the “Celestial Kingdom”?

Followup

I’d also like to know what the significance/importance of these “other” relationships was in terms of a test of faith if Parker is correct and Joseph Smith did not consummate the marriages with any of these women? Where does the test come in? I think it would be more of a test if the women were in fact expected to consummate such marriages, i.e. do they love God more than their viginity/chastity? For those that were already married, do they love God more than their own fidelity to their husbands? Does Joseph Smith love God more than his own fidelity to his wife to the point that he would break a wedding vow? Does Emma (and the other women’s spouses) love God more than her husband’s fidelity to the point that she would allow her husband to be intimate with another woman? Those would be the real test. Unless the supposition is in fact that God somehow stopped the consummation just before it took place with each of these women in the same way God stopped Abraham from actually sacrificing Isaac?

Which would also bring up the question as to how many times would Joseph Smith have to prove his love and fidelity to God in such a case? (How many women was he actually married and sealed to; how many times did God put him to the test, but then stop the consummation?)

 

[Jesse_Duran]

Thankyou for those of you who answered. My question about “good” Catholics seeing Mary or Jesus comes from the many stories that they have appeared to good, faithful Catholics. I was wondering that if they could see them, why couldn’t JS see the"finger" of God or Jesus. To me that isn’t to far off.

My other question has more to do with those who say that JS is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I read the quote given from the book that was sited, but what have you all found that proves he is as evil as you all say. I would realy like to know.

OK, JS couldn’t have seen God or Jesus because “Jesus has yet to come again” and god does not show his true image to us

JS could have not been evil but could have been deceived by the devil because “the devil can appear in the form of an angel” or perhaps other things

 

[Jesse_Duran]

ProdigalSon1,

You could try drawing a simple picture. An angel comes to earth, provides a book with the everlasting gospel in the book, and the book goes forth into the world. The angel has thus “preached unto them that dwell on earth” by a means that allows the people on earth over centuries of time to get the book, read it, and decide for themselves whether it is the everlasting gospel, rather than being forced by some divine manifestation that would take away free choice, to learn the fullness of the everlasting gospel. This is key to understanding how God works among humankind. He does not force, nor do the angels force.

This angel is most likely Satan, “if an angel even came at all”

God bless, I will pray for you

 

[jlhargus]

MARK

 

[jlhargus]

This angel is most likely Satan, “if an angel even came at all”
God bless, I will pray for you

Paul tells us in Gal1:8 But though we, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED UNTO YOU, LET HIM BE ACCURSED. 9 As we said before, SO SAY I NOW AGAIN, IF ANY MAN PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you THAN THAT YE HAVE RECEIVED, let him be accursed.

Mormonism cetainly preaches, ANOTHER gospel, completly different than the gospel the apostles delieved

 

[Tmaque]

Followup

I’d also like to know what the significance/importance of these “other” relationships was in terms of a test of faith if Parker is correct and Joseph Smith did not consummate the marriages with any of these women? Where does the test come in? I think it would be more of a test if the women were in fact expected to consummate such marriages, i.e. do they love God more than their viginity/chastity? For those that were already married, do they love God more than their own fidelity to their husbands? Does Joseph Smith love God more than his own fidelity to his wife to the point that he would break a wedding vow? Does Emma (and the other women’s spouses) love God more than her husband’s fidelity to the point that she would allow her husband to be intimate with another woman? Those would be the real test. Unless the supposition is in fact that God somehow stopped the consummation just before it took place with each of these women in the same way God stopped Abraham from actually sacrificing Isaac?

Which would also bring up the question as to how many times would Joseph Smith have to prove his love and fidelity to God in such a case? (How many women was he actually married and sealed to; how many times did God put him to the test, but then stop the consummation?)

Of course he had sex with these women. Why else would he marry them? How naive can a person be?

 

[Jay53]

Of course he had sex with these women. Why else would he marry them? How naive can a person be?

I hope that wasn’t directed at me and was just a general rhetorical question.

I do believe that he had sex with these women. IMO, that was part of the whole reason he married them and duped them into his false religion.

My question is more for my own understanding - from the Mormon perspective, how they view this “test of faith”.

 

[PaulDupre]

Of course he had sex with these women. Why else would he marry them? How naive can a person be?

“Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.”

• Joseph Smith’s close confidant and LDS Church First Councilor, William Law, Interview in Salt Lake Tribune, July 31, 1887

When Heber C. Kimball asked Sister Eliza R. Snow the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith, she replied, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”

• Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.

 

[Tmaque]

I hope that wasn’t directed at me and was just a general rhetorical question.

I do believe that he had sex with these women. IMO, that was part of the whole reason he married them and duped them into his false religion.

My question is more for my own understanding - from the Mormon perspective, how they view this “test of faith”.

It wasn’t directed at you. As an ex-LDS I can tell you that anything Joseph Smith did is explained away and rationalized by LDS faithful. It truly is a case of blind faith here. Why would God give someone a test that was a violation of the adultery commandment? “Prove your loyalty to me and marry(seduce) this teenage girl”? That certainly sounds like something the devil would think up however.

 

[Jay53]

It wasn’t directed at you. As an ex-LDS I can tell you that anything Joseph Smith did is explained away and rationalized by LDS faithful. It truly is a case of blind faith here. Why would God give someone a test that was a violation of the adultery commandment? “Prove your loyalty to me and marry(seduce) this teenage girl”? That certainly sounds like something the devil would think up however.

I agree. I guess I’m just trying to see it from their perspective. I’m sure they would say the God gave Abraham a test that was a violation of the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment. But, as I pointed out in an earlier post, God stopped Abraham before he actually sacrificed his son. I’m trying to see where else they try to draw the parallel between the two scenarios. I really am interested to see what their response will be. (This isn’t a “baiting” or “bashing” question.)

And who knows, my questions may cause them to actually think and, in turn, open the door for the Holy Spirit to guide them.

 

[aspirant]

Will you please list the changes, I’m curious about them.

They are all under the “Inspired Version” written by Joseph Smith.

You can read from the Joseph Smith Translation or “Inspired Version” here.

I’ve got a book version from Herald House Publishing (Community of Christ, a.k.a. RLDS).

 

[ParkerD]

But God did not let Abraham actually kill Isaac.

And what are the ramifications of these sealings in the next world, i.e. how does this affect the afterlife of Joseph, Emma and the other women and their husbands?

Jay53,
Joseph Smith may have initially regarded sealings in the way that families were being joined in covenant relationships with each other and with God. I have read this may have been the case, but wasn’t there of course and there isn’t enough documentary evidence either way. I view the early sealings performed as not being the “final and complete” version of the doctrine, and that God revealed His will a little at a time even with this temporary doctrine of plural marriage.

As for Abraham, your point is well taken of course. I think the purpose was a test of faith ultimately in both kinds of cases. One of the Abrahamic tests for others would be the fact that plural marriage was ever even practiced in the LDS church. Some can’t accept that, so they don’t seek any further guidance from the Holy Spirit about anything related to Mormonism, and approach it as an intellectual subject which is easily dismissed unless one really does research in depth rather than on a superficial level.

Have an enjoyable weekend, and peace to you and your family always.

 

[hosemonkey]

It has been shown to me on these threads that mormons are totally blind when it comes to the myriad inconsistencies and gross flaws of Joseph Smith and all the lies that he and his cohorts have perpetrated upon the mormon “faithfull.” I am convinced that if evidence surfaces that proves without a doubt that Joseph Smith was a murderer, a serial adulterer, a child molester and a mentally ill megalomaniac, it would not make the slightest bit of difference. The fact that all the above charges are true, with the possible exception of murder, still has not penetrated the minds of your average mormon. They must believe in this man or their whole belief system falls apart. Joseph Smith was no “prophet” but was instead a fraud. The “religion” that he fabricated is also fraudulent and those who perpetuate the fraud are equally culpable.

 

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by ParkerD
ProdigalSon1,
I see that you don’t think God can differentiate between giving the world a true book through an angel, or allowing a false prophet to deceive a whole multitude of people with a false “revelation.” I personally think God has more power and knowledge than you seem to have given Him credit for. I also think He allows people to make choices, even as you have taken the opportunity to make the choices you have made. The choice rests with the person, not with God making anyone do His will by force, or by divine manifestations to prove that He is real and that He has given the world truth. He lets people figure out truth based on getting the Holy Spirit personally into their life.

Have a good day.

I give God credit for having the power to build a Church and stay with that Church, and ALL people, through all time. I will mention that I see your argument of me limiting God as a poor tactic, or choice of words to say the least. It contradicts the rest of your post, referencing decisions.

God always lets people make decisions, never forces them to make a certain decision, and never forces the Holy Spirit to make them make certain decisions.

Christ and the Apostles taught against false prophets/teachers.

Yes, and Mohammed would be one. Every teacher who teaches contrary to the belief that Christ is the “Rock” and the foundation and corner stone of the church He founded, would be a false teacher whom the apostles were warning against and whom Christ said would be on the earth.

Considering the number of people that has existed since the building of the Church, and even in the present time, far outweigh the multitude of people you’re trying to impress upon us as being deceived. Think about it logically for just a second, since you brought it up. Which is a larger multitude of people, the people of the Church Christ built or the people of the Church Joseph Smith built? Mormons claim the Church that Christ built became so corrupted, that it lost it’s valid priesthood. That Church existed for more than 1800 years, before Joseph Smith built his Church. Was 1800 years of people deceived, and still being decieved a smaller multitude than the 200 years of Mormons? Using ‘multitude’ as you use it, seems to work against your argument.

I was talking about the people who are Muslim or follow Mohammed.
“So corrupted” is not the term I would use as to the loss of priesthood authority, as any slight impurity that brought the loss of the Holy Spirit would be sufficient impurity to invalidate the God-given authority of the priesthood. It is God’s authority, always–His to give, and His to decide if it is not being used purely.

God gave us a brain to discern with. We are to spiritually weigh things, but that cannot be done without using our brains. That’s how we’re to make our decisions. Catholics have logic and the ‘good feeling’, burning in the bosom. There are way too many illogical issues of Mormonism one has to override with their ‘burning in the bosom’, in my honest opinion.

I think you are making a valid point about your opinion. That opinion would continue forever based on the kind of logic you are presenting. It is precisely the kind of logic that Paul taught should not be the basis of gaining spiritual understanding through the Holy Spirit, since it relies solely on the human mind and human understanding. It places the ladder of knowledge “against the wrong wall.”

But I appreciate that you have been forthcoming and kind in your questions and responses, and sincerely thank you for this courtesy. I think the truths you have (which are many) are the truths you want, and that they provide you the basis for living a wonderful life with much joy and peace. May those be your fruits always.

 

[ParkerD]

I agree. I guess I’m just trying to see it from their perspective. I’m sure they would say the God gave Abraham a test that was a violation of the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment. But, as I pointed out in an earlier post, God stopped Abraham before he actually sacrificed his son. I’m trying to see where else they try to draw the parallel between the two scenarios. I really am interested to see what their response will be. (This isn’t a “baiting” or “bashing” question.)

And who knows, my questions may cause them to actually think and, in turn, open the door for the Holy Spirit to guide them.

Jay53,
When one visualizes Abraham right at the point of going ahead with the revelation he had received to sacrifice Isaac, with the altar built and with the knife in hand and Abraham knowing that “God could raise him up, even from the dead” and that he had been promised “that in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Hebrews 11:19,18)–one can understand the critical importance of knowing which voice among the many possible voices, one is following. Abraham could have told himself, “this cannot possibly be that God would have given me such a revelation. I must have been dreaming, or seen a false spirit or heard a false voice.” This would be logical. Logic would say God would not ask him to do such a thing, especially in view of the fact that Abraham himself had been placed on a false altar as a young man and had nearly been killed by his father–a false priest acting out of a pagan ritual.

So visualizing Abraham in that scenario helps to see that one really needs to come to an understanding whereby they are confident that they fully know that the voice they are listening to is God’s voice through the Holy Spirit telling them so. Then they can also peer into their inner soul and reflect on Biblical promises such as the resurrection and the promise of revelation to individuals living righteously, and also Biblical paradoxes such as that Abraham had more than one wife, and move through the paradox into a position of receiving greater knowledge because they have exercised faith and shown they were ready to still love God and still honor His word and will do His will even in the midst of a paradox.

It was a test of trust, and it was really centered in the atonement of Jesus Christ and the resurrection promise. One can also detect from the belief Abraham evidently had that Isaac would immediately be resurrected and live on the earth to bear children as promised to Abraham by God before Isaac was born, that Abraham believed resurrection involved families still being together. His was not the belief that his son, Isaac, would be resurrected into a condition of not being able to have children. This is attested by Paul as I had noted earlier, in Hebrews 11:17-19.

The LDS at the time of Joseph Smith had experienced the Holy Spirit in their individual lives, but perhaps not all of them had and it is true some leaders (such as the Law brothers) had decided that Joseph Smith was no longer receiving revelation from God. Thus they had their own personal test of whether they would seek an answer from the Holy Spirit confirming a possible paradox, or would simply say “no way that can be true” and not grasp that their faith was being tested by God.

Paradoxes happen in the modern world. We see earthquake paradoxes, tsunami paradoxes, family health issues that are paradoxes, untimely deaths that are paradoxes, and the question becomes whether we will still love God and still trust His voice through the Holy Spirit, despite real paradoxes that test our faith and the true sincerity of our belief and love for God. Because we know He loves us, we can discern the paradox and still love Him despite being brought to the point of having a very real, very searing test of our faith.

I hope that helps. Peace to all, and have a wonderful day and a beautiful Sabbath upcoming.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
When one visualizes Abraham right at the point of going ahead with the revelation he had received to sacrifice Isaac, with the altar built and with the knife in hand and Abraham knowing that “God could raise him up, even from the dead” and that he had been promised “that in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Hebrews 11:19,18)–one can understand the critical importance of knowing which voice among the many possible voices, one is following. Abraham could have told himself, “this cannot possibly be that God would have given me such a revelation. I must have been dreaming, or seen a false spirit or heard a false voice.” This would be logical. Logic would say God would not ask him to do such a thing, especially in view of the fact that Abraham himself had been placed on a false altar as a young man and had nearly been killed by his father–a false priest acting out of a pagan ritual.

So visualizing Abraham in that scenario helps to see that one really needs to come to an understanding whereby they are confident that they fully know that the voice they are listening to is God’s voice through the Holy Spirit telling them so. Then they can also peer into their inner soul and reflect on Biblical promises such as the resurrection and the promise of revelation to individuals living righteously, and also Biblical paradoxes such as that Abraham had more than one wife, and move through the paradox into a position of receiving greater knowledge because they have exercised faith and shown they were ready to still love God and still honor His word and will do His will even in the midst of a paradox.

It was a test of trust, and it was really centered in the atonement of Jesus Christ and the resurrection promise. One can also detect from the belief Abraham evidently had that Isaac would immediately be resurrected and live on the earth to bear children as promised to Abraham by God before Isaac was born, that Abraham believed resurrection involved families still being together. His was not the belief that his son, Isaac, would be resurrected into a condition of not being able to have children. This is attested by Paul as I had noted earlier, in Hebrews 11:17-19.

The LDS at the time of Joseph Smith had experienced the Holy Spirit in their individual lives, but perhaps not all of them had and it is true some leaders (such as the Law brothers) had decided that Joseph Smith was no longer receiving revelation from God. Thus they had their own personal test of whether they would seek an answer from the Holy Spirit confirming a possible paradox, or would simply say “no way that can be true” and not grasp that their faith was being tested by God.

Paradoxes happen in the modern world. We see earthquake paradoxes, tsunami paradoxes, family health issues that are paradoxes, untimely deaths that are paradoxes, and the question becomes whether we will still love God and still trust His voice through the Holy Spirit, despite real paradoxes that test our faith and the true sincerity of our belief and love for God. Because we know He loves us, we can discern the paradox and still love Him despite being brought to the point of having a very real, very searing test of our faith.

I hope that helps. Peace to all, and have a wonderful day and a beautiful Sabbath upcoming.

I appreciate your effort, but no, that didn’t really help. It doesn’t address the question of polygamy and how that was a “test of faith”. I understand “tests of faith”, I just don’t understand how that applies to Joseph Smith and his adulterous relationships with other women.

If I understand your previous post, you believe that Joseph isn’t really “sealed” to any of these other women, which then compounds my questions of why he did it and what it meant to him, Emma and these other women and/or their husbands (if they were already married.) Where was the sacredness of the physical relationships with these women? Was he fulfilling God’s commandment if he wasn’t really sealed to if he didn’t mean it; or was God the one who cancelled these sealings and at what point would He have done this? It also doesn’t explain God’s apparent change of heart with regard to chastity and how He calls us to live.

Also, do the same principles apply to Brigham Young (and other polygamous Mormons) - was he “sealed” to more than one of his multiple wives and if so, how does that impact their afterlives and if not, why did he marry them in the first place, why would God have him do this?

(And off topic, but just for the record, I don’t believe Abraham was married to Hagar (if that is who you are referring to.) The Bible verses say that Hagar was given to Abraham “to be his wife” as a euphemism for intercourse. If you read subsequent verses, Abraham gives Sarah the authority to dismiss Hagar as she sees fit, when, from what I understand of polygamous marriages, the 1st wife does not have authority over subsequent wives. Also, when the angel appears to Hagar later on, he addresses her as “servant of Sarai” not “wife of Abraham”.)

 

[ParkerD]

I appreciate your effort, but no, that didn’t really help. It doesn’t address the question of polygamy and how that was a “test of faith”. I understand “tests of faith”, I just don’t understand how that applies to Joseph Smith and his adulterous relationships with other women.

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.

If I understand your previous post, you believe that Joseph isn’t really “sealed” to any of these other women, which then compounds my questions of why he did it and what it meant to him, Emma and these other women and/or their husbands (if they were already married.)

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.

Where was the sacredness of the physical relationships with these women?

Not there as to married women.

Was he fulfilling God’s commandment if he wasn’t really sealed to if he didn’t mean it; or was God the one who cancelled these sealings and at what point would He have done this?

God does not need for humankind to do things perfectly. We are imperfect. Joseph Smith never said he was perfect. Any “sealing” that was incorrect as to the doctrine God intended, would be null and void in the hereafter. A principle can be learned step by step, and along the way be misunderstood until the final understanding is received by revelation. This is how revelation works–starting from where a person is at, and moving from that position of understanding to “getting it right as the Holy Spirit keeps revealing greater knowledge about a subject.”

It also doesn’t explain God’s apparent change of heart with regard to chastity and how He calls us to live.

I agree that plural marriage is a difficult doctrine to ever think God would require it of anyone. Plural marriage would not by definition be breaking the law of chastity, unless one defines chastity as marrying only one person. Moses himself had two wives, so he understood the difference himself.

Also, do the same principles apply to Brigham Young (and other polygamous Mormons) - was he “sealed” to more than one of his multiple wives and if so, how does that impact their afterlives and if not, why did he marry them in the first place, why would God have him do this?

Evidently they will have sealings in their resurrection that are plural marriage sealings. My dad has been sealed to his second wife since my mom died eleven years ago. But “procreation” after the resurrection will be bringing forth spirit children (way on down the line, eons of time into the future) and not physical children, so physical intimacy may not be part of the resurrection at all–I have no idea, and maybe not but still the relationships of being supportive and bringing unique insights into a relationship are an integral part of resurrection relationships of marriage.

(And off topic, but just for the record, I don’t believe Abraham was married to Hagar (if that is who you are referring to.) The Bible verses say that Hagar was given to Abraham “to be his wife” as a euphemism for intercourse. If you read subsequent verses, Abraham gives Sarah the authority to dismiss Hagar as she sees fit, when, from what I understand of polygamous marriages, the 1st wife does not have authority over subsequent wives. Also, when the angel appears to Hagar later on, he addresses her as “servant of Sarai” not “wife of Abraham”.)

Good point. I agree that Hagar was considered a “concubine”. But Jacob’s two wives, Leah and Rachel, were wives, and their children were covenant sons with covenant promises from God. The sons of the other two women who bore Jacob’s children were also covenant sons with covenant promises, although it can be said that the birthright promises and blessings and a greater role of their posterity, were given to Judah and to Joseph.