Why Accept Joseph Smith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If plural marriages was done ‘in order to please God’, why has that teaching changed within Mormonism?

As you refer to the plural marriages of the Old Testament, please provide some examples of a man taking another man’s wife as his own, while the other man was still alive?
Some of the most famous “revelations” have come on the heels of huge criticism and financial loss.

For plural marriage, it was the loss of their lands and buildings that caused the revelation that plural marriage was over…but even LDS Apostles at that time, depsite it being from God, continued in plural marriage.

For Black in the Priesthood, it was huge criticism from everyone and schools vowing to not schedule BYU in sports (huge loss of money) that caused the revelation to switch that policy.

Apparently, the LDS god is motivated by money and is not more powerful than anyoine around him.
 
ParkerD -

I have a few questions regarding Joseph Smith.

You stated that “Joseph Smith said plural marriage was revealed to him as something he needed to do in order to please God.”
  1. Was it something all people needed to do to please God or just Joseph Smith?
  2. Was it something all Mormons needed to do to please God or just JS?
  3. Was it something all non-Mormons needed to do to please God or just JS?
  4. Do you think that the Protestant culture in Missouri at the time would have a very difficult time understanding polygamist people much like Mormons and non-Mormons are intolerant of the FLDS today?
Thanks!
 
I never said I don’t like Mormons, themselves. Instead of answering the most simple question about Joseph Smith, you avoided the question all together and turned the discussion on to me.

I can’t remember ever seeing a Mormon admit that Joseph Smith ever did anything wrong. Catholics will openly speak about the sinful men in the Catholic Church’s history, but it seems Mormons have placed Joseph Smith above any wrongdoing whatsoever. That speaks volumes, whether you realize it or not. There was only one that was perfect and He was the only begotten Son of God. Joseph Smith, prophet or not, was ONLY a man, and all men are sinful, even if Mormons won’t admit to that about Smith.
we don’t have to. You do it all for us.

This isn’t about a reasonable discussion between two positions that can both admit fault in themselves, Prodigal Son. This is about armies, combat and bomb throwing.

If the only thing you EVER heard from non-Catholics was a constant barrage of criticism and accusations (most false, exagerated, mean spirited and intended to portray them as venal, evil pedophiles, hypocrites and minions of Satan), and you knew that if you so much as admitted that one of them EVER made a personal error that this would be taken as a blanket admission of the whole set, what would you do?

When I was in high school, I heard a couple of girls who were gossiping about another girl, criticising what she was wearing. They went on and on about how horrible her dress was, and how stupid her sandals were, and why didn’t she shave her legs—and her hair looked like a dirty mop head. This girl they were being mean to was my cousin, and I blew.

I told them that she looked just fine, that her dress looked just like ours and I knew that one of my friends had a pair of sandals JUST like hers, and her hair was just fine, too; she’d been out in the wind.

All those girls could latch onto was the comment about the wind blown hair. “See,” I KNEW you would admit that she’s a dweeb…she can’t even comb her hair!

When antis and critics start in on Joseph Smith, we do not see it as our job to admit that he had faults; of course he did. He was a man like all men. But you guys would see any admission of this the way those girls saw my comment about wind blown hair; not as a comment on the frailty of all men, but as a blanket admission that every accusation you make about Joseph Smith is, ah HA! TRUE, because didn’t a Mormon JUST ADMIT IT???

Sorry, bub, but if you want us to comment on Josephs bad business sense, or his struggles with his family, then you are going to have to back off the attacks. Defenders defend, they do not advertise weaknesses that the enemy can exploit, and don’t kid yourself. You see yourselves as the enemies of Mormonism…and if you see yourselves that way, why should we see you any differently?
I see irony in the ‘lying for Jesus’ statement, coming from a Mormon. I remember watching a video of a Mormon instructing young people, for what supposedly was for missionary purposes even though many Mormons denied that here. Anyway, the instructor told them, you don’t have to answer all their questions, you can answer the question they should’ve asked.
And even you can’t say that this video, which I haven’t heard of, by the way…instructs anybody to LIE about anything.

But the anti-types, do. Frequently. Deliberately. With great enthusiasm and without any trace of guilt. It is perfectly permissible to do so, because the ends justify the means; defeating Mormonism is so important a goal that if you insert a little lie about what our beliefs are here and there, that’s OK.

Faced with that, you really expect us to say anything negative about Joseph Smith? When y’all would take that and turn that into an infinitely repeated sound/quote bite that you can present as an admission that we ADMIT that we are following a ‘false prophet,’ or whatever it is that will be done with it?
 
  1. Do you think that the Protestant culture in Missouri at the time would have a very difficult time understanding polygamist people much like Mormons and non-Mormons are intolerant of the FLDS today?
Thanks!
Protestant culture was rather bigoted against difference. Catholicism was not loved among the protestants in america as several churches were burned at the same time protestants were burning down mormon churches. And the frontier was especially closed minded toward difference. It did not take much to incite people against anything that was different. Just look at the poor native american.
 
Faced with that, you really expect us to say anything negative about Joseph Smith? When y’all would take that and turn that into an infinitely repeated sound/quote bite that you can present as an admission that we ADMIT that we are following a ‘false prophet,’ or whatever it is that will be done with it?
And what is truly amazing is that the catholics here on this thread and on the other mormon threads seem to be overlooking the sex scandals that are rocking Ireland and Germany at this moment. Imagine the field day that the catholics would be having if such scandals were hitting the lds church! I can only imagine the type of posts that would be posted about the lds church and how such scandals can only be due to the way mormons live their lives and the cultish oppression that exists in the lds faith…so would go the post under similiar circumstances.
 
And what is truly amazing is that the catholics here on this thread and on the other mormon threads seem to be overlooking the sex scandals that are rocking Ireland and Germany at this moment. Imagine the field day that the catholics would be having if such scandals were hitting the lds church! I can only imagine the type of posts that would be posted about the lds church and how such scandals can only be due to the way mormons live their lives and the cultish oppression that exists in the lds faith…so would go the post under similiar circumstances.
It’s not overlooked, in fact it’s being discussed on a couple of threads. It’s sad that you choose to capitalize on this subject to sway the subject from any possible wrongdoing of Joseph Smith. That is what is missing here.

I asked, as simply as possible, for a Mormon to share a mistake, or wrongdoing of Joseph Smith’s. It appears they have elevated him beyond reproach, with the absence of any concessions that he may have made any mistakes.
 
It’s not overlooked, in fact it’s being discussed on a couple of threads. It’s sad that you choose to capitalize on this subject to sway the subject from any possible wrongdoing of Joseph Smith. That is what is missing here.

I asked, as simply as possible, for a Mormon to share a mistake, or wrongdoing of Joseph Smith’s. It appears they have elevated him beyond reproach, with the absence of any concessions that he may have made any mistakes.
Prodigal Son, you have no right to ask.

It would be like someone, after telling you what a slatternly, ugly, misbegotten slob your wife is, to tell him what you least like about her. YOU might think she needs to lose a few pounds, or that her housekeeping is a little lackadaisical, but against such miserable, mean-spirited and obvious hatred she would get, ( I hope) a solid, unconditional defense from you, not some qualified betrayal.

If all that someone got from you is a raised eyebrow, he should consider himself lucky.
 
And what is truly amazing is that the catholics here on this thread and on the other mormon threads seem to be overlooking the sex scandals that are rocking Ireland and Germany at this moment. Imagine the field day that the catholics would be having if such scandals were hitting the lds church! I can only imagine the type of posts that would be posted about the lds church and how such scandals can only be due to the way mormons live their lives and the cultish oppression that exists in the lds faith…so would go the post under similiar circumstances.
Uh…you need to go onto the threads that are discussing the sexual abuse problems in Ireland and Germany. I have been reading them for the past couple of days and maybe you should, too. There are several. This thread is “Why Accept Joseph Smith?” Not the thread to find info on the sex abuse scandal rocking Ireland and Germany.

There are plenty of non-Catholics posting their opinions and feelings, as well. Please feel free to join in. It is not just a bashing session though, there is a lot to be learned from the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Why would you think that the Catholics here on CAF would be shielded from this?

I think Catholics get LOTS of attention when it comes to sexual abuses. Either you are not watching T.V. or you are living in a bubble if you think this situation is being OVERLOOKED.

Catholics everywhere are talking about this.
 
Protestant culture was rather bigoted against difference. Catholicism was not loved among the protestants in america as several churches were burned at the same time protestants were burning down mormon churches. And the frontier was especially closed minded toward difference. It did not take much to incite people against anything that was different. Just look at the poor native american.
I was referring VERY SPECIFICALLY to the issue of polygamy and how if it so unpopular today, then how must people have felt about it 180 or so years ago?
 
Prodigal Son, you have no right to ask.

It would be like someone, after telling you what a slatternly, ugly, misbegotten slob your wife is, to tell him what you least like about her. YOU might think she needs to lose a few pounds, or that her housekeeping is a little lackadaisical, but against such miserable, mean-spirited and obvious hatred she would get, ( I hope) a solid, unconditional defense from you, not some qualified betrayal.

If all that someone got from you is a raised eyebrow, he should consider himself lucky.
I think one has every right to take a close look at the founder of a Church. The comparison between the founder of a Church and my wife is laughable, at best. There is no comparison between the two’s responsibilities.

What about Jim Jones, who founded another Church? There are very sinful misled people who start Churches.

Mormons certainly have no problems discussing the Apostles, or the early Church fathers that Mormons claim were so corrupt as to lose the valid priesthood. There is no difference.

Evidently, we are to take the Mormon refusal to discuss any mistakes, or wrongdoings, of Joseph Smith to what those outside the Mormon Church have to say.
 
ParkerD -

I have a few questions regarding Joseph Smith.

You stated that “Joseph Smith said plural marriage was revealed to him as something he needed to do in order to please God.”
  1. Was it something all people needed to do to please God or just Joseph Smith?
  2. Was it something all Mormons needed to do to please God or just JS?
  3. Was it something all non-Mormons needed to do to please God or just JS?
  4. Do you think that the Protestant culture in Missouri at the time would have a very difficult time understanding polygamist people much like Mormons and non-Mormons are intolerant of the FLDS today?
Thanks!
Hi, Lax16,
Such a beautiful day where I live–I hope you have had one also.
  1. At first it was only Joseph Smith, and it was a test of his faith as well as probably a test of other people’s faith so that they would really have to look deep inside their heart and figure out if they really did have a testimony of such things as the Book of Mormon being a true book testifying of Christ, and whether God really did provide modern guidance to a prophet in their own day and time. Some people didn’t “pass” that test. (It was a pretty difficult test of their faith, admittedly so.)
Abraham had a test of his own faith and whether he really believed God could provide a resurrection to his son, Isaac. He knew he had been given a revelation to do something he would have not the slightest belief that God would ask him to do. But when God asked, he did it. He even “rose up early in the morning” to do what God had asked him to do.

Joseph Smith later asked it of a few men who were the faithful, tried and true men who loved God and were honorable in keeping His commandments.

It was never something “all people needed to do to please God”–neither in Joseph Smith’s day nor in Brigham Young’s day of leadership, nor thereafter.
  1. It was never a test of faith for non-LDS, and was only a test of faith in terms of living that principle, for a certain few (perhaps 10%-20% of the LDS membership).
  2. A covenant people are asked to live by covenant principles that God does not ask other people to live by. Everyone who wants to please God ought to keep the commandments that they have understood God has asked them to keep, being careful to heed the whisperings of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with sincere Bible study and sincere prayer without preconceived answers they are expecting from God if they have questions.
  3. Of course the entire Missouri culture and Illinois culture would have a difficult time understanding that a group of people in their midst had received a revelation that ran counter to their own judgment of God’s commandments, and would think that such people were not being guided by God.
As far as being “intolerant of FLDS”, what rubs me the wrong way is the use of an identity by them that tries to tie to the larger LDS organization instead of calling themselves by some other name that would be completely distinctive and never be misunderstood by the media or anyone else. They can do whatever they lawfully want to do, as far as I’m concerned, as long as they do not use manipulative tactics against any of their followers–but I wish they would change their title to an identity that is never confusing to people who do not understand the difference. Other than that, I don’t spend any time at all even thinking about the FLDS other than not being surprised that they get media attention since the media seek out curiosity stories that sell newspapers and advertising.
 
I was referring VERY SPECIFICALLY to the issue of polygamy and how if it so unpopular today, then how must people have felt about it 180 or so years ago?
It was unpopular then, and it’s unpopular now, and the reactions to it now are pretty nasty. PuLEEZE don’t get me going on the Texas FLDS compound disaster. (I can just hear the groans from here…)

the fact that modern opposition to polygamy is stupid, insane, illegal and abusive doesn’t make it OK for even dumber, madder, violent and abusive opposition to it way back when.

You are correct; we LDS types don’t like polygamy. It’s one of the things that will get you ex’d faster than you can say 'I do, I do."

However, we do not do the sort of things our nineteenth century neighbors did…or even that our modern day Texas neighbors did.
 
I think one has every right to take a close look at the founder of a Church. The comparison between the founder of a Church and my wife is laughable, at best. There is no comparison between the two’s responsibilities.
Don’t stretch the analogy. It was used to show you loyalty and trust; you would not betray yours, but you are insisting that we agree with you in your attack upon ours.

As I said, you have no right.
What about Jim Jones, who founded another Church? There are very sinful misled people who start Churches.
Ok…and? Are you telling me that it you would be nodding like a bubble head doll if non-Catholics and anti-Catholics began vilifiying every Pope who ever lived…or would you concentrate upon defending their virtues, so that the discussion would not be so completely one sided?
Mormons certainly have no problems discussing the Apostles, or the early Church fathers that Mormons claim were so corrupt as to lose the valid priesthood. There is no difference.
We don’t have a problem in the world with the apostles, Prodigal Son. Nothing happened until the apostled were all gone, remember? As well, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Mormon being as adamantly and completely condemning of every act, word and character trait of those who came after as you are with Joseph Smith. In fact, I know of nobody who accuses them of being personally and morally corrupt or evil.
Evidently, we are to take the Mormon refusal to discuss any mistakes, or wrongdoings, of Joseph Smith to what those outside the Mormon Church have to say.
Well, as I said, if the conversation is to be two sided, one side has to be on the defense team. It isn’t very logical to join the other army when defending one’s own home, does it?
 
“Sorry, bub, but if you want us to comment on Josephs bad business sense, or his struggles with his family, then you are going to have to back off the attacks.”

Translation: She is only going to be honest if we stop telling the truth
 
“Sorry, bub, but if you want us to comment on Josephs bad business sense, or his struggles with his family, then you are going to have to back off the attacks.”

Translation: She is only going to be honest if we stop telling the truth
No, m’friend, it means that I believe in an honest two way conversation; and by the way, . You have just proven my claim, and illustrated why Mormons do not, in general, discuss the failings of Joseph Smith. Remember when I wrote that if one of us did, even in the mildest sense, the enemy would take that statement and run with it, crying See…here’s a Mormon who just admitted EVERYTHING we said was TRUE!!

Thus, by illustrating my point so well, have you just ended the conversation.

You are valuable, Atticus. you are the epitome and example of every stereotype there is in anti-hood, and especially anti-Mormon circles. I can always count on you to do precisely what I predict you will do…as you have just done here.
 
And what is truly amazing is that the catholics here on this thread and on the other mormon threads seem to be overlooking the sex scandals that are rocking Ireland and Germany at this moment. Imagine the field day that the catholics would be having if such scandals were hitting the lds church! I can only imagine the type of posts that would be posted about the lds church and how such scandals can only be due to the way mormons live their lives and the cultish oppression that exists in the lds faith…so would go the post under similiar circumstances.
How totally idiotic. First, you don’t think Catholics heard quite a lot of stuff when the scandal first hit? Of course we did. Do you think you can say anything we have not heard? Of course you can’t. Did any of us defend the guilty priests? Nope. They were wrong. There have been been sex scandals in almost every faith, including LDS, but no Church has the number of members the Catholic Church does.

So no, we are not overlooking it. It is just not part of this conversation. Should you choose to start a thread bashing the sex scandal, go ahead, we have heard it all before. The difference is, we do not whitewash it or minimize it.
 
No, m’friend, it means that I believe in an honest two way conversation;

no, you don’t

and by the way, . You have just proven my claim, and illustrated why Mormons do not, in general, discuss the failings of Joseph Smith. Remember when I wrote that if one of us did, even in the mildest sense, the enemy would take that statement and run with it, crying See…here’s a Mormon who just admitted EVERYTHING we said was TRUE!!

No, you just illustrated that you can’t be honest

Thus, by illustrating my point so well, have you just ended the conversation.

Yeah, you have said that before, yet, in keeping with your dishonesty, you keep posting to me

You are valuable, Atticus. you are the epitome and example of every stereotype there is in anti-hood

lol…that might mean something were it true. I have already proven I am not anti anything. The problem is, you NEED me to be anti in order for you to be the typical LDS victim

I can always count on you to do precisely what I predict you will do…as you have just done here.
And I can always count on you to be dishonest and the victim.
 
How totally idiotic. First, you don’t think Catholics heard quite a lot of stuff when the scandal first hit? Of course we did. Do you think you can say anything we have not heard? Of course you can’t. Did any of us defend the guilty priests? Nope. They were wrong. There have been been sex scandals in almost every faith, including LDS, but no Church has the number of members the Catholic Church does.

So no, we are not overlooking it. It is just not part of this conversation. Should you choose to start a thread bashing the sex scandal, go ahead, we have heard it all before. The difference is, we do not whitewash it or minimize it.
My point was simple: If the situation were reversed, a person like you would be bringing it up in every post as an indictment against mormonism. That was my point. The mormons have been pretty nice in not bringing it up. I can not say that they would have gotten the same treatment if the situation were reversed.

And it was whitewashed in the past…this is where the problem began…in the whitewashing and coverup. My point: all churches have skeletons in the closet. It goes with having human beings as members.
 
I was referring VERY SPECIFICALLY to the issue of polygamy and how if it so unpopular today, then how must people have felt about it 180 or so years ago?
Not very. But protestant culture, of which the mormons were surrounded by, would have had problems with polygamy. And this is why the church leaders were not exactly broadcasting it from the rooftops. And why it was publically denied at that time. The blood thirsty mobs would have been like hyienas smelling fresh meat.

Now if the mormons were allowed religious freedom. it may have been different. 🙂

But catholicism was not that popular either with the protestants. Catholics were looked upon as controlled by the pope and a little dirty…remember the dirty Irish and the Italian grease balls? Such were they called because they were considered inferior to the dominant white protestant culture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top