• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

DeepShadow

White Crow
doppelgänger;969589 said:
Precisely. Why should Mormons care if other "Christians" consider Mormons "Christian" or not?

From a purely theological standpoint, it makes no difference. Unfortunately, we don't live in a purely theological world. When Mormons are denied scholarships, awards, even simple club memberships on the judgements of others, it has an impact.

Moreover, few of our critics stop at merely excluding us as Christians. They use that as a wedge to insert all kinds of baseless crap.
 

KingM

Member
One of them was my great-grandmother. Do you have a problem with that? I don't and it directly impacts my family and its history. How does this impact you?

How many missionaries does the church have now? 50,000? Isn't the goal of the missionary program to convince people to change their entire belief system and even put their own religous history behind them?

So why is it not legitimate to ask whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet and whether or not his teachings--some of which, like polygamy, are challenging, to say the least--are from God or not?

You make extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
How many missionaries does the church have now? 50,000? Isn't the goal of the missionary program to convince people to change their entire belief system and even put their own religous history behind them?

Ummmm...No. But that aside, your followup question is still valid:

So why is it not legitimate to ask whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet and whether or not his teachings--some of which, like polygamy, are challenging, to say the least--are from God or not?

You are free to ask whether these teachings are from God or not. I don't see where anyone said otherwise. I'd encourage you to ask whether these are teachings of God. Better yet, ask God whether these are His teachings.

You make extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Begging the question: If God is making the claims, He'll provide His own evidence.
 

MomtoFour

New Member
One of them was my great-grandmother. Do you have a problem with that? I don't and it directly impacts my family and its history. How does this impact you?

Do I have a problem with your great-grandmother choosing to marry Joseph Smith, assuming she made that choice of her own free will? No.

Do I have a problem believing that polygamy as Joseph Smith practiced it was sanctioned by (let alone commanded by) God? Yes. I find it impossible to believe. And because of that and other serious doubts about the foundational claims of the church, I'm no longer Mormon.
 

MomtoFour

New Member
Begging the question: If God is making the claims, He'll provide His own evidence.

I didn't know God posted here. ;-)

Seriously, I don't believe God is making the claim that Joseph Smith is a prophet. And I've given him lots of chances to provide the evidence.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
Begging the question: If God is making the claims, He'll provide His own evidence.

I didn't know God posted here. ;-)

Seriously, I don't believe God is making the claim that Joseph Smith is a prophet. And I've given him lots of chances to provide the evidence.

Then you've had your answer, haven't you? It doesn't matter what any of us say, after all. You asked the One that matters, and He said "No."

God Bless.
 

MomtoFour

New Member
It was the same.

But that's not what Joseph Smith told Helen Mar Kimball. From the wikipedia article on Helen Mar Kimball, which seems to be based on Todd Compton's book:

"Helen took 24 hours to respond to this request, and consented after Smith explained to her that it would ensure her eternal salvation along with that of her family. Helen was ‘’sealed’’ to Joseph Smith in May 1843."

Before you go claiming outrageous statements, please cite your information.

Sorry. Today is a crazy day for me and I was in a hurry. I try to be better about posting sources in the future. As I said in a later post, Todd Compton's book In Sacred Loneliness is an excellent resource on polygamy in the early Mormon church. There is an introduction about polygamy and then one chapter devoted to each of Joseph Smith's wives. Compton relies heavily on primary source material (letters and journals written by the wives and those close to them) and is good about quoting his sources. Unfortunately, the copy I read was borrowed through Inter Library Loan and so I don't have it on me anymore. (You can, however, read parts of Compton's book at the web site for Signature Books. I don't have enough posts to post links.)

Here are my original claims, with the best online source I can find right now. Again, I believe all of this is covered in Compton's book.

Joseph Smith married other men's wives.--From Compton: "However, the remaining eleven women (33 percent) were married to other husbands and cohabiting with them when Smith married them. "

He coerced a teenager into marrying him by telling her that her family would obtain exhaltation if she did. (See above quote about Helen Mar Kimball. She was still 14 when she married Joseph Smith.)

He married women behind his first wife's back and then lied about it. Brigham Young taught that a man had to have at least three wives in order to achieve the highest level of exhaltation and--these two I am having a hard time finding online evidence for right at the moment.

that a woman could righteously leave her husband if she could get a man with a higher level of priesthood to marry her.--From Compton " Another relevant doctrinal statement comes from an 1861 speech by Brigham Young:
The Second Way in which a wife can be seperated from her husband, while he continues to be faithful to his God and his preisthood, I have not revealed, except to a few persons in this Church; and a few have received it from Joseph the prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the preisthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is ... there is no need for a bill of divorcement ... To recapitulate. First if a man forfiets his covenants with a wife, or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God, and his preisthood, that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second. If a woman claimes protection at the hands of a man, possessing more power in the preisthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife he can do so without a bill of divorcement."
He sent a man off on a mission and then married the man's wife and moved her and the sons she had with her first husband to Utah.--From Compton "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." There is more about this in the chapter on Zina.
 

Malach1

Member
Joseph smith is like Nebo or Thoth in the new age- the god(s) they worship are the same- Is it not Ammon- they honor with there religion that one called Mammon by Christ who is also known as Amaymon
 

Polaris

Active Member
Sorry. Today is a crazy day for me and I was in a hurry. I try to be better about posting sources in the future. As I said in a later post, Todd Compton's book In Sacred Loneliness is an excellent resource on polygamy in the early Mormon church. There is an introduction about polygamy and then one chapter devoted to each of Joseph Smith's wives. Compton relies heavily on primary source material (letters and journals written by the wives and those close to them) and is good about quoting his sources. Unfortunately, the copy I read was borrowed through Inter Library Loan and so I don't have it on me anymore. (You can, however, read parts of Compton's book at the web site for Signature Books. I don't have enough posts to post links.)

I readily admit that Joseph and Brigham's history with polygamy is very difficult to understand and therefore difficult to fully come to terms with, but don't you find it somewhat telling that Compton - one of the few experts on the topic - despite the complicated polygamous history still maintains his acceptance of Joseph as a true prophet?

With all of the research that Compton has conducted and all the witness-based accounts that he has poured over and included in his writings (many of which do raise difficult questions), yet he is still convinced that Joseph was a true prophet.

This states loud and clear that there simply isn't any substantial evidence that condemns Joseph guilty of abuse or of instituting polygamy for selfish purposes. Even in the eyes of Compton Joseph's integrity remains intact sufficient to merit being a true prophet of God.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
doppelgänger;969593 said:
I suggest you tell that to Comprehend. You have the wrong audience in me.

I already knew that. ;)

Where do you get the idea that I didn't?

You claimed the BoM was a fraud, DS has offered a 1 on 1 debate to anyone on the authenticity of the BoM.

I suggested you take him up on the offer... (see post #17 and #60)


you refused....


Would you mind pointing out where I said the debate was to convice you of anything? :sarcastic

(and when you are unable, would you mind not saying that anymore? It is annoying and either careless or dishonest.)


I couldn't care less what you think of the Book of Mormon, I just wanted to watch you try to back up your uninformed claim and get taken to the cleaners.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
doppelgänger;969611 said:
That wouldn't be a good debate.

mmm. probably not, I think you would do better than most but would still get beat pretty badly.

Probably a good move on your part.


I've read arguments about this evidence numerous times before.

of course.... I'm sure you know DS's argument inside and out and could blow it apart..... but you are too busy for a pointless waste of your time.... :rolleyes:

I think it is every bit as preposterous and contorted as what the "Creationists" deal in, and there's no convincing those who believe in it otherwise. So it's not a "good debate" but rather a pointless waste of time.

Then why don't you expose the joke of an argument for what it is for all the world (or just RF) to see? :p
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
What is your view on the prophethood of Joseph Smith?

What really surprises me as Joseph Smith the Prophet was that he was one of the most renown revelators for divine inspirations since the primitive Biblical writers and depending on who you ask, Joseph Smith’s prophesies were either hit or miss. But the most astounding thing about his revelations are that his inspired contributions really didn’t expound too much on the time between biblical writers last inspirings from God to the present. Here was an opportunity to reveal current prophecy for a society and a world that was going through many changes and evolutions. Here was an opportunity to set things straight and really bring it home to the new era and the next 2000 years. All we seem to have gotten was more of the same, a sort of direct sequel to the Bible and absolutely no new information from the past centuries or any relevant future prophecies or new morals and ethics that could mark and support not only his claims but parallel the period that he and others were currently living in at the time.
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
Here was an opportunity to set things straight and really bring it home to the new era and the next 2000 years. All we seem to have gotten was more of the same, a sort of direct sequel to the Bible and absolutely no new information from the past centuries or any relevant future prophecies or new morals and ethics that could mark and support not only his claims but paralelle the period that he and others were currently living in at the time.

If he was going to claim (as he did) that the LDS Church was a continuation of the early Christian churches it would make sense that his 'prophecies' and such would mirror that of the Bible, don't you think? ;)
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
What is your view on the prophethood of Joseph Smith?

What really surprises me as Joseph Smith the Prophet was that he was one of the most renown revelators for divine inspirations since the primitive Biblical writers and depending on who you ask, Joseph Smith’s prophesies were either hit or miss. But the most astounding thing about his revelations are that his inspired contributions really didn’t expound too much on the time between biblical writers last inspirings from God to the present. Here was an opportunity to reveal current prophecy for a society and a world that was going through many changes and evolutions. Here was an opportunity to set things straight and really bring it home to the new era and the next 2000 years. All we seem to have gotten was more of the same, a sort of direct sequel to the Bible and absolutely no new information from the past centuries or any relevant future prophecies or new morals and ethics that could mark and support not only his claims but paralelle the period that he and others were currently living in at the time.

:eek:

IMHO - Your statement leads me to believe you aren't very familiar with what was revealed through Joseph Smith.

BTW -
The purpose was to *restore* the gospel, and what the revelations were, was up to God, not Smith.
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
If he was going to claim (as he did) that the LDS Church was a continuation of the early Christian churches it would make sense that his 'prophecies' and such would mirror that of the Bible, don't you think? ;)
There is a noticeable difference in the way that the Biblical God is documented and described over the centuries. This is evident through the mannerisms and the teachings and cultures between the Old Testament and the New Testament. I was sort of expecting a new Testament that reflected and testified to the standards and cultural understandings of the 19th Century and beyond. Sort of a way to clear the old dust and give us insight to not only how we are doing now but where we are going for the future and not retread primitive history and outdated traditions.
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
:eek:

IMHO - Your statement leads me to believe you aren't very familiar with what was revealed through Joseph Smith.

BTW -
The purpose was to *restore* the gospel, and what the revelations were, was up to God, not Smith.

I guess what I am trying to say (and I think Beckysoup explained it nicely) is that the gospel according to Joseph Smith didn't bring as much clarity as it did by offering us more mystery. Here was an opportunity to clarify Truth (not just the belief that its Truth) but instead we are offered an extra helping of faith.

Speaking of which Comprehend, I am currently researching Joseph Smith's Lectures of Faith. Stay tuned, when I get the time, I will PM you my material.
 
Top