But Nobody is Interested!

[_Chap]

1. We can't talk about or make judgment of something if we don't have complete understanding of it.
2. We don't know if we have complete understanding of history concerning Joseph Smith.
3. Therefore, we cannot talk about or make a judgment that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

We can talk about it, just as we are concerning the topic at hand, but it is true that we can't make a judgement on whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet based soley upon historical facts, because we don't have a complete library of all the facts. In addition, we tend to cherry pick certain facts or objects in the historical record to prove our own intellectual position.

I think you are confusing two things here:

1. Whether there is a possible argument to be made by a person who already believes in the prophethood of Joseph Smith, to the effect that those aspects of the historical evidence that tend to bring him into disrepute might not seem so damaging if we knew the full story.

2. Whether to a reasonable person with no prior commitment the historical evidence relating to Joseph Smith is clear enough to be the basis of an argument for them ceasing to take him seriously as a possible prophet (given that there are other candidates, and also the possibility of concluding that there simply are no plausible prophets at all, and that the time and energy available for investigating such things is necessarily limited).

It is quite possible to say that the answer to (1) may be positive while the answer to (2) may also be positive. Whether either argument is sufficient to produce conviction may be a different story.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think you are confusing two things here:

1. Whether there is a possible argument to be made by a person who already believes in the prophethood of Joseph Smith, to the effect that those aspects of the historical evidence that tend to bring him into disrepute might not seem so damaging if we knew the full story.

2. Whether to a reasonable person with no prior commitment the historical evidence relating to Joseph Smith is clear enough to be the basis of an argument for them ceasing to take him seriously as a possible prophet (given that there are other candidates, and also the possibility of concluding that there simply are no plausible prophets at all, and that the time and energy available for investigating such things is necessarily limited).

Having been involved a bit in online discussions for a number of years now I have noticed that frequently these two points are brought up in one form or another and linked together. The problem I see is that there is a presupposition in the mind of the critic that a person "already believe[d] in the prophethood of Joseph Smith" if they remained a believer after having seen the "historical evidence that tend[s] to bring him into disrepute". I don't know that this can be taken as a given. And if it can't, number one doesn't hold much weight.

It's like saying which comes first, the chicken or the egg.

I was BIC, but I can't remember ever having "already believed", as in believing hook, line, and sinker, in the prophethood of Joseph Smith. I doubt that I am in the minority. It is a process to come to that place. For anyone, in the church or as a convert.

If number one is invalid, I don't think that number two can be directly linked to it, which seems to be what you and others would like to do. As a result, number two doesn't carry much weight.

I think that everyone has to make their way through number two pretty much on a level playing field.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

...why is a prophet who is on a first-name basis with God looking for "wiggle room" with commandments, anyway?

I don't know that Joseph Smith was "looking" for wiggle room in regards to purposefully disobeying God's commands. Just as most of us don't intentionally do things wrong rather than right. We do what we think is right at the time. We then go back later and see that we screwed up. I'm sure Joseph was no different than us in this respect.

Would you say that the words that the Lord is purported to have spoken directly to you would be a good guide in one's thinking as to what is right at the time? Let's see what Joseph Smith had to say about that:

Chapter 13: Obedience: “When the Lord Commands, Do It”, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007)

“To get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded. Men may preach and practice everything except those things which God commands us to do, and will be damned at last. We may tithe mint and rue, and all manner of herbs, and still not obey the commandments of God [see Luke 11:42]. The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.”

“As a Church and a people it behooves us to be wise, and to seek to know the will of God, and then be willing to do it; for ‘blessed is he that heareth the word of the Lord, and keepeth it,’ say the Scriptures. ‘Watch and pray always,’ says our Savior, ‘that ye may be accounted worthy to escape the things that are to come on the earth, and to stand before the Son of Man.’ [See Luke 11:28; 21:36.] If Enoch, Abraham, Moses, and the children of Israel, and all God’s people were saved by keeping the commandments of God, we, if saved at all, shall be saved upon the same principle. As God governed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as families, and the children of Israel as a nation; so we, as a Church, must be under His guidance if we are prospered, preserved and sustained. Our only confidence can be in God; our only wisdom obtained from Him; and He alone must be our protector and safeguard, spiritually and temporally, or we fall.

“We have been chastened by the hand of God heretofore for not obeying His commands, although we never violated any human law, or transgressed any human precept; yet we have treated lightly His commands, and departed from His ordinances, and the Lord has chastened us sore, and we have felt His arm and kissed the rod; let us be wise in time to come and ever remember that ‘to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.’ [1 Samuel 15:22.]”

“When instructed, we must obey that voice, observe the laws of the kingdom of God, that the blessing of heaven may rest down upon us. All must act in concert, or nothing can be done, and should move according to the ancient Priesthood; hence the Saints should be a select people, separate from all the evils of the world—choice, virtuous, and holy. The Lord [is] going to make of the Church of Jesus Christ a kingdom of Priests, a holy people, a chosen generation [see Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9], as in Enoch’s day, having all the gifts as illustrated to the Church in Paul’s epistles and teachings to the churches in his day.”

“Any man may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and be happy in that belief, and yet not obey his commandments, and at last be cut down for disobedience to the Lord’s righteous requirements.”

.......................

“Remember, brethren, that He has called you unto holiness; and need we say, to be like Him in purity? How wise, how holy; how chaste, and how perfect, then, you ought to conduct yourselves in His sight; and remember, too, that His eyes are continually upon you. Viewing these facts in a proper light, you cannot be insensible, that without a strict observance of all His divine requirements, you may, at last, be found wanting; and if so, you will admit, that your lot will be cast among the unprofitable servants.”

It sure does look like Joseph Smith thought that obedience in exactitude was required. In his words, at least. Clearly not in his actions.

How could Joseph Smith possibly not know that he was intentionally violating the instructions that he had personally received from the Lord (granting the premise for the sake of argument)?

And since you brought it up about realizing we screwed up, I was wondering when exactly (or even approximately) it was that Joseph Smith realized that he was not obeying the commandments regarding the conditions for plural marriage, and then acknowledged it and corrected his mistake. Would you happen to know where I could find out more about that?

If you are appealing to popularity...

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the church's message is uniquely different from any one of the other "popular" churches you referred to.

Raelism also has a message that is uniquely different from the other popular churches you will tend to encounter. Is the "uniqueness" of the message a measure of its truth value?

Do you feel that not holding Joseph Smith to his own standards, and not evaluating his qualifications to be the prophet according to the standards revealed to him in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Church not holding Joseph Smith to its own standards, comprise a unique message?

So, since these other denominations are much more "explosive" than the LDS Church, these other denominations must be more true than the LDS Church. That's what follows from your "explosive" argument.

Again, growth in particular is not the number one thing I'm referring to. It's the message.

So far in this thread, the message seems to be that Joseph Smith can do anything he wants, no matter whom it affects and what it does to his followers, and that has no bearing on "the Church is true!"

You never did talk about why Joseph Smith lost the power to translate the Book of Mormon for a while because he trifled with sacred things, but he would not have lost his authority as a prophet for habitually violating every single one of the conditions for plural marriage in D&C 132. Do you feel that the Lord would be more concerned over some manuscript pages than the people who were affected by Joseph Smith's plural marriage practices?

The cultural heritage of a religious group says nothing about the validity of its truth claims.

Nothing to argue there.

Then I really don't know what the "rich tapestry" is.

By the way, part of the rich tapestry of Brighamite Mormonism is the FLDS Church.

No. They're apostates from the CofJCofLDS.

The FLDS are undeniably part of the tapestry of Brighamite (and John Taylor-ite, since they believe he was a prophet) Mormonism, and apostasy is merely a point of view. The FLDS consider you to be apostate. The Community of Christ considers you and the FLDS to be apostate. The Bickeronites consider all of the above to be apostate. Many Protestants don't even consider any of the aforementioned to be Christian. And so on. And yet they are all woven out of the same fabric.

1. We can't talk about or make judgment of something if we don't have complete understanding of it.
2. We don't know if we have complete understanding of history concerning Joseph Smith.
3. Therefore, we cannot talk about or make a judgment that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

We can talk about it, just as we are concerning the topic at hand, but it is true that we can't make a judgement on whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet based soley upon historical facts, because we don't have a complete library of all the facts. In addition, we tend to cherry pick certain facts or objects in the historical record to prove our own intellectual position.

What facts am I cherry picking? And if you are asserting that it takes godlike omniscience of fact to arrive at a conclusion, then we cannot say that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Without a complete library of all the facts, how can we be sure that he did not practice human sacrifice, or that he wasn't a cannibal, or that he didn't have sex with farm animals? (Although I am starting to suspect that any of those, if proven to be true, would not affect your view of Joseph Smith's prophethood.)

Or, maybe what you're saying is just a dodge, because we do have sufficient facts to know that he consistently violated the conditions for plural marriage that the LDS Church has canonized, and that by the D&C's own terms and the LDS Church's own teachings, he could not have remained a worthy priesthood holder, and therefore could not have continued to be a prophet.

And that's before we even get into whether Brigham Young violated the conditions set forth in D&C 132 (hint: he did).

You take the "rich tapestry of Brighamite Mormonism" as evidence that the LDS Church is the correct branch of Mormonism. This is essentially an argument of "by their fruits ye shall know them." However, you are not willing to apply that same standard to Joseph Smith's conduct in the office of prophet. Why is "by their fruits ye shall know them" not a valid way to evaluate whether someone is a true prophet?

It's not just the fruits. Although they are important and substantial. It's also the way in which the fabric of the restored gospel creates a tapestry which goes across generations and back into the beginning of Judeo-Christian and world history, all the way to Adam, and ties everything together in dispensations with a final return of Jesus Christ and his millenial reign, etc. It's much larger than simply looking at the culture, as you are attempting to do.

I think you may find upon additional research that the tapestry that the restored gospel weaves as to what the Church claims to be world history, and what historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, and geologists have discovered may not be entirely compatible with each other (to put it politely).

I'm not attempting to look at a culture; I'm not the one who started talking about the restoration being EXPLOSIVE! or the rich fabric of tapestry, etc. This is starting to look a lot like we can't let ourselves be bothered by Joseph Smith's behavior, and him forfeiting priesthood authority according to his own revelations, because he told good stories.

The truth claims of the LDS Church depend on the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If the Doctrine and Covenants is a true book of scripture, than Joseph Smith's ability to act as a prophet is dependent on his behavior.

You're promoting a POV that it's "all or nothing". That's where we are in disagreement.

Hey, don't complain to me. Tell it to the Church.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

D&C 121

We're not talking about Joseph Smith saying a swear word one time, or losing his temper once in a while, or some other example of normal human frailty. We're talking about a continuing pattern, over a course of years, which Joseph Smith never admitted, never forsook, and actively lied about to third parties (not the least of which was Emma).

And it's those third parties you're referring to that have passed on their own version/interpretation of Joseph's actions. A while back while you were on hiatus from the board we had an interesting go-around concerning John C. Bennett and the influence that he had on the historical record concerning polygamy that came out of Nauvoo. In some cases I think we need to treat these sources with much trepidation and suspicion.

I think that we're much safer relying on primary sources such as the Joseph Smith Papers project and other sources that do not rely upon second or third hand parties to give us a true historical record.

Did Joseph Smith marry any women who were betrothed to another man? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did Joseph Smith marry any women who were not virgins? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did Joseph Smith marry any women without seeking Emma's consent first? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did Joseph Smith multiply and replenish the earth with his plural wives? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Do we have any first-person accounts from Joseph Smith's plural wives as to the above? [ ] Yes [ ] No
When the RLDS Church sent missionaries to Utah claiming that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy
and/or that he did not have "marital relations" with his plural wives, did the LDS Church get affidavits
from women who had been married to Joseph Smith to refute those assertions? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Have any faithful members of the LDS Church who are trained historians written any biographies
of Joseph Smith documenting answers to these questions? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Do any apologetic organizations located at any universities owned by the LDS Church
acknowledge answers to these questions? [ ] Yes [ ] No

[_mentalgymnast]

...We have been chastened by the hand of God heretofore for not obeying His commands, although we never violated any human law, or transgressed any human precept; yet we have treated lightly His commands

Importantly Joseph said, "we", not "you". He had often been rebuked/chastened by the Lord for disobedience and slothfulness.

It sure does look like Joseph Smith thought that obedience in exactitude was required. In his words, at least. Clearly not in his actions.

This seems to be a major stumbling block for you.

How could Joseph Smith possibly not know that he was intentionally violating the instructions that he had personally received from the Lord (granting the premise for the sake of argument)?

He may or may not have. But that is between him and the Lord.

...I was wondering when exactly (or even approximately) it was that Joseph Smith realized that he was not obeying the commandments regarding the conditions for plural marriage, and then acknowledged it and corrected his mistake.

How are we to know just how exactly/correctly Joseph understood the revelations that were given to him. He received revelation(s) but then was left to govern himself. I would think that he was also left to interpret the revelations with his own mind and then interpret and consider how they applied to him. Just as we are obligated to do. But when it comes down to it, we don't know what "realizations" either did or didn't come to Joseph Smith, we only have the written revelations and our understandings of them as as benchmarks to guage his behavior.

Would you happen to know where I could find out more about that?

Joseph himself. But he's not available. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to sit down with him and get the straight scoop?

Do you feel that not holding Joseph Smith to his own standards, and not evaluating his qualifications to be the prophet according to the standards revealed to him in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Church not holding Joseph Smith to its own standards, comprise a unique message?

Only in the sense that the church teaches that we are each individually accountable to God for our lives and are left to work our own salvation. That message isn't necessarily unique, however.

So far in this thread, the message seems to be that Joseph Smith can do anything he wants, no matter whom it affects and what it does to his followers, and that has no bearing on "the Church is true!"

Well, again, we can each do whatever we want, no matter who it affects and what it does to our families and associates. This would have no bearing on whether "the church is true".

You never did talk about why Joseph Smith lost the power to translate the Book of Mormon for a while because he trifled with sacred things, but he would not have lost his authority as a prophet for habitually violating every single one of the conditions for plural marriage in D&C 132.

We don't know what the ramifications may have been for any transgressions he may have encountered or given into during his experience/time living the law of polygamy.

That, again, would be between him and God. Why is this a difficult concept for you?

The FLDS are undeniably part of the tapestry of Brighamite (and John Taylor-ite, since they believe he was a prophet) Mormonism, and apostasy is merely a point of view. The FLDS consider you to be apostate. The Community of Christ considers you and the FLDS to be apostate. The Bickeronites consider all of the above to be apostate. Many Protestants don't even consider any of the aforementioned to be Christian. And so on. And yet they are all woven out of the same fabric.

No, they are a torn off portion of the tapestry which was the Salt Lake church. They are then not part of the same cloth. One is then left to choose between which remaining portion of what was the whole cloth is "made in heaven" vs. made of men.

Or, maybe what you're saying is just a dodge, because we do have sufficient facts to know that he consistently violated the conditions for plural marriage that the LDS Church has canonized, and that by the D&C's own terms and the LDS Church's own teachings, he could not have remained a worthy priesthood holder, and therefore could not have continued to be a prophet.

When all is said and done Joseph practiced the law of polygamy. How exactly and obediently he practiced the guidelines/laws that were set forth in the revelations concerning the same are debateable. But nonetheless, the law of plurality of wives was part of the "restoration of all things" and Joseph did the best he could with it. At least, that is, if we give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think you may find upon additional research that the tapestry that the restored gospel weaves as to what the Church claims to be world history, and what historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, and geologists have discovered may not be entirely compatible with each other (to put it politely).

That, as you know, is debateable. And, a whole other topic.

This is starting to look a lot like we can't let ourselves be bothered by Joseph Smith's behavior, and him forfeiting priesthood authority according to his own revelations, because he told good stories.

It sounds to me like you have let the topic of polygamy act as the "deal breaker" between you and the church.

Did Joseph Smith marry any women who were betrothed to another man? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did Joseph Smith marry any women who were not virgins? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did Joseph Smith marry any women without seeking Emma's consent first? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Did Joseph Smith multiply and replenish the earth with his plural wives? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Do we have any first-person accounts from Joseph Smith's plural wives as to the above? [ ] Yes [ ] No
When the RLDS Church sent missionaries to Utah claiming that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy
and/or that he did not have "marital relations" with his plural wives, did the LDS Church get affidavits
from women who had been married to Joseph Smith to refute those assertions? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Have any faithful members of the LDS Church who are trained historians written any biographies
of Joseph Smith documenting answers to these questions? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Do any apologetic organizations located at any universities owned by the LDS Church
acknowledge answers to these questions? [ ] Yes [ ] No

I don't have the time to go back and find the "correct" answers to each of these questions. I'm not trying to "beg out", I just don't want to spend the time to go through and research the answers to all of these. Here and there over the years I've probably read the yes's and the no's on many of these as I read Compton, Van Wagoner ,etc. But, alas, I don't remember every detail I've read. If you would like to post the "correct" answers to each one of these questions I'm sure we could each benefit from your doing so.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

...We have been chastened by the hand of God heretofore for not obeying His commands, although we never violated any human law, or transgressed any human precept; yet we have treated lightly His commands

Importantly Joseph said, "we", not "you". He had often been rebuked/chastened by the Lord for disobedience and slothfulness.

So, in your view, Joseph Smith was not preaching a sermon and including his audience in the "we," and the Church quoting this in a lesson manual did not intend for church members to understand themselves to be included in the "we." Rather, this is just Joseph Smith giving a Hamlet-like soliloquy about his own sins, and idiosyncratically referring to himself in the first person plural, in which Joseph Smith is reminiscing about his own sins, which as you have said should not interest us because that's all between "them" (Joseph Smith) and God. Is that your point?

It sure does look like Joseph Smith thought that obedience in exactitude was required. In his words, at least. Clearly not in his actions.

This seems to be a major stumbling block for you.

Yes, I admit that I do have this problem that flagrant hypocrisy in the founder of a religion and the need to avoid internal consistency in the scriptures to save him is one of those bizarre hang-ups I have. Would that I could accept hypocrites as worthy religious leaders---just like Jesus taught.

How could Joseph Smith possibly not know that he was intentionally violating the instructions that he had personally received from the Lord (granting the premise for the sake of argument)?

He may or may not have. But that is between him and the Lord.

How again is it just his private affair when the LDS Church invites the world to accept him as a prophet? I guess that's what I keep not seeing in your conclusory statements.

...I was wondering when exactly (or even approximately) it was that Joseph Smith realized that he was not obeying the commandments regarding the conditions for plural marriage, and then acknowledged it and corrected his mistake.

How are we to know just how exactly/correctly Joseph understood the revelations that were given to him.

I see. So Joseph Smith, who spoke to God face to face on more than one occasion, was visited by angels, had John the Baptist and Peter, James and John personally come and give him the priesthood, and translated the Book of Mormon, and whom the Lord entrusted to restore the true gospel, may have completely misunderstood the things that the Lord revealed to him.

If Joseph Smith's ability to understand the Lord's revelations is in doubt, then how do we know that Joseph Smith relayed them correctly to us? How do we know the tapestry of the unique message of the LDS Church is correct, since Joseph Smith's ability to understand that message---and therefore his ability to convey that message---is at issue?

He received revelation(s) but then was left to govern himself. I would think that he was also left to interpret the revelations with his own mind and then interpret and consider how they applied to him. Just as we are obligated to do.

That's a good point. For example, according to my interpretation of how things apply to me, I think that I should have a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other as I watch pornography and have affairs with married women. I am sure my bishop will have no problem with me living up to my obligation to interpret the Church's teachings in my own mind and consider how they apply to me.

But when it comes down to it, we don't know what "realizations" either did or didn't come to Joseph Smith, we only have the written revelations and our understandings of them as as benchmarks to guage his behavior.

If I am ever charged with a crime, it is my sincere prayer that you and a bunch of people like you are on the jury.

Would you happen to know where I could find out more about that?

Joseph himself. But he's not available. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to sit down with him and get the straight scoop?

I don't see how that would help. From what I hear, he may not have had the slightest idea what God meant when all these revelations were going on.

Do you feel that not holding Joseph Smith to his own standards, and not evaluating his qualifications to be the prophet according to the standards revealed to him in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Church not holding Joseph Smith to its own standards, comprise a unique message?

Only in the sense that the church teaches that we are each individually accountable to God for our lives and are left to work our own salvation. That message isn't necessarily unique, however.

Then why doesn't God come visit me personally and reveal all these things to me? Why doesn't God have an angel bring me golden plates and let me translate them for myself? Why doesn't God send ancient apostles and prophets to give priesthood keys to me?

Oh, now I remember. It's because the Church teaches that we always have a middleman between us and God, and it's none of our business if that middleman does things that are inconsistent with him holding that office and the authority he purports to hold over us. But it most definitely is the business of our church leaders if we break the rules, one of which is not to criticize our leaders even if the criticism is true.

I would just like to remind everyone that we are not a cult.

So far in this thread, the message seems to be that Joseph Smith can do anything he wants, no matter whom it affects and what it does to his followers, and that has no bearing on "the Church is true!"

Well, again, we can each do whatever we want, no matter who it affects and what it does to our families and associates. This would have no bearing on whether "the church is true".

However, each of us is not the founding prophet of the Church. So, basically what I'm seeing here is that Joseph Smith's behavior is irrelevant to his being a prophet, and his being a prophet is irrelevant to the Church being true.

You're sure we're not a cult, right?

You never did talk about why Joseph Smith lost the power to translate the Book of Mormon for a while because he trifled with sacred things, but he would not have lost his authority as a prophet for habitually violating every single one of the conditions for plural marriage in D&C 132.

We don't know what the ramifications may have been for any transgressions he may have encountered or given into during his experience/time living the law of polygamy.

So D&C 121 is just kind of filler or thinking out loud or some such, I guess. That section does say what the ramifications would be, but who knows anything? Joseph Smith may have misunderstood the inspired words transmitted to him by the Creator of the universe, and we all may be misunderstanding that misunderstanding. I'm not even sure I'm typing these words right now. Are you sure that you are reading them?

That, again, would be between him and God. Why is this a difficult concept for you?

I guess it would be difficult for me because Jesus taught the people in Palestine and also the Nephites to beware of false prophets, and gave a test to detect them.

And I guess it is further difficult for me because according to the LDS Church, I have to rely on Joseph Smith to get this concept of God whom all of this is between.

The FLDS are undeniably part of the tapestry of Brighamite (and John Taylor-ite, since they believe he was a prophet) Mormonism, and apostasy is merely a point of view. The FLDS consider you to be apostate. The Community of Christ considers you and the FLDS to be apostate. The Bickeronites consider all of the above to be apostate. Many Protestants don't even consider any of the aforementioned to be Christian. And so on. And yet they are all woven out of the same fabric.

No, they are a torn off portion of the tapestry which was the Salt Lake church. They are then not part of the same cloth. One is then left to choose between which remaining portion of what was the whole cloth is "made in heaven" vs. made of men.

If they are torn off, by definition they are a piece of the same cloth. I wonder how we can determine which portion is made of men. Certainly not by the behavior of Warren Jeffs, since that is completely irrelevant as to whether the FLDS Church is the true church and whether Warren Jeffs is a true prophet.

Or, maybe what you're saying is just a dodge, because we do have sufficient facts to know that he consistently violated the conditions for plural marriage that the LDS Church has canonized, and that by the D&C's own terms and the LDS Church's own teachings, he could not have remained a worthy priesthood holder, and therefore could not have continued to be a prophet.

When all is said and done Joseph practiced the law of polygamy. How exactly and obediently he practiced the guidelines/laws that were set forth in the revelations concerning the same are debateable.

Okay. Debate it.

But nonetheless, the law of plurality of wives was part of the "restoration of all things" and Joseph did the best he could with it. At least, that is, if we give him the benefit of the doubt.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, what conceivable factual basis could you have for the assertion that Joseph did the best he could?

Didn't Warren Jeffs also do the best he could?

I think you may find upon additional research that the tapestry that the restored gospel weaves as to what the Church claims to be world history, and what historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, and geologists have discovered may not be entirely compatible with each other (to put it politely).

That, as you know, is debateable. And, a whole other topic.

Oh, so you feel there is a good faith debate available as to whether the academic and scientific world accepts as actual history things like the entire planet being turned into an ocean in Noah's time, or the Tower of Babel, or the human race getting its start in Missouri around 6,000 years ago----things like that are generally accepted as fact?

This is starting to look a lot like we can't let ourselves be bothered by Joseph Smith's behavior, and him forfeiting priesthood authority according to his own revelations, because he told good stories.

It sounds to me like you have let the topic of polygamy act as the "deal breaker" between you and the church.

Oh, without doubt, this is the one, singular smoking gun.

I had a similar problem with Santa Claus. He was kind of mean to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer for a while. The rest of the Santa Claus story was totally, inherently plausible, but it was that one thing that ended it for me with Santa.

I don't have the time to go back and find the "correct" answers to each of these questions. I'm not trying to "beg out", I just don't want to spend the time to go through and research the answers to all of these. Here and there over the years I've probably read the yes's and the no's on many of these as I read Compton, Van Wagoner ,etc. But, alas, I don't remember every detail I've read. If you would like to post the "correct" answers to each one of these questions I'm sure we could each benefit from your doing so.

Did Joseph Smith marry any women who were betrothed to another man? [X] Yes [ ] No

Among others, he married the wife of Orson Hyde while the latter was on his mission in which he dedicated Palestine. See below for more.

Did Joseph Smith marry any women who were not virgins? [X] Yes [ ] No

For example, on January 17, 1842, married Mary Elizabeth Rollins. She was pregnant at the time. It is probably also a fair inference that the already-married women he married were not virgins.

Did Joseph Smith marry any women without seeking Emma's consent first? [X] Yes [ ] No

Several examples, like the Partridge sisters. One place you can read about them is on page 494 of Rough Stone Rolling, where Richard Bushman, a believing LDS historian, talks about Joseph marrying the Partridge sisters in secret prior to getting married to them again with Emma's approval---about which she soon changed her mind:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_izMO9 ... es&f=false

Did Joseph Smith multiply and replenish the earth with his plural wives? [ ] Yes [X] No

Joseph Smith had no known children from his plural wives. Having children is the express purpose of plural marriage given in Jacob and in D&C 132.

Do we have any first-person accounts from Joseph Smith's plural wives as to the above? [X] Yes [ ] No

Our own board member Runtu talked about this on his blog:

http://runtu.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/secret-wives/

When the RLDS Church sent missionaries to Utah claiming that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy
and/or that he did not have "marital relations" with his plural wives, did the LDS Church get affidavits
from women who had been married to Joseph Smith to refute those assertions? [X] Yes [ ] No

Here is Richard Bushman talking about it in Rough Stone Rolling:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_izMO9 ... es&f=false

Have any faithful members of the LDS Church who are trained historians written any biographies
of Joseph Smith documenting answers to these questions? [X] Yes [ ] No

For example, the aforementioned Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman.

Do any apologetic organizations located at any universities owned by the LDS Church
acknowledge answers to these questions? [X] Yes [ ] No

Here is the Maxwell Institute talking about Joseph Smith marrying already-married women, which violates D&C 132:

As the table and discussion above show, Joseph was sealed to twenty-one women who were unmarried or widowed. Nearly all indications of sexual relations pertain to these marriages. The table and discussion also show that Joseph was sealed to eight women with an existing marriage. In one marriage, that of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, there was a pregnancy, which, according to family tradition, Sylvia related to the time when her husband "was out of fellowship with the Church" (p. 183). As stated in the above discussion on polyandry, even this is not shown to be a concurrent sexual relationship with two husbands. For the remaining seven sealings of Joseph to married women, there is no reliable evidence that these involved sexual relationships. With one known exception, we know only that the ceremony gave these married women the right to be joined to Joseph Smith in the next world. Sources simply do not show a "marital triangulation" in these cases.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=290

[_RockSlider]

In my experience, the TBM (of Chapel Mormon variety) is so deeply indoctrinated with the "only truth church" and anything else is of the devil, that when presented with hard "hints" their immediate thought is how the presenter has obviously obtained that material from anti-mormon sources. It's not that they don't want to hear it from disinterest; they shut it out because it's evil.

Heck in the good old days (i.e. well into this century), they ex'ed apostates who threated the flock with "hints".

[_mentalgymnast]

So, in your view, Joseph Smith was not preaching a sermon and including his audience in the "we,"...

Audience was included.

So Joseph Smith, who spoke to God face to face on more than one occasion, was visited by angels, had John the Baptist and Peter, James and John personally come and give him the priesthood, and translated the Book of Mormon, and whom the Lord entrusted to restore the true gospel, may have completely misunderstood the things that the Lord revealed to him.

Misinterpreted or mishandled. Partially/incompletely. In some cases.

If Joseph Smith's ability to understand the Lord's revelations is in doubt, then how do we know that Joseph Smith relayed them correctly to us?

The settled doctrines of the restoration and the policies and procedures associated with those settled doctrines can be trusted. Ordinances. Sacraments. Gospel teachings through correlated material. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Not everything was perfectly understood and/or implemented at the beginning of the restoration process.

...the Church teaches that we always have a middleman between us and God, and it's none of our business if that middleman does things that are inconsistent with him holding that office and the authority he purports to hold over us. But it most definitely is the business of our church leaders if we break the rules, one of which is not to criticize our leaders even if the criticism is true.

No. The church teaches that we each have the gift of the Holy Ghost to give us personal revelation. We are taught, yes, that it is inappropriate to publicly criticize our leaders. It would, however, be appropriate to conference with them privately if we have concerns.

So, basically what I'm seeing here is that Joseph Smith's behavior is irrelevant to his being a prophet, and his being a prophet is irrelevant to the Church being true.

What matters is what God thought of Joseph Smith and whether or not he could be trusted to accomplish the work set forth for him to do.

You're sure we're not a cult, right?

Only in the sense that we derive our doctrinal teachings from outside of the creeds of the predominant Christian religions.

...I have to rely on Joseph Smith to get this concept of God whom all of this is between.

Yes. But if Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father and the Son, it seems as though we would be wise to rely upon his teachings concerning the same.

Oh, so you feel there is a good faith debate available as to whether the academic and scientific world accepts as actual history things like the entire planet being turned into an ocean in Noah's time, or the Tower of Babel, or the human race getting its start in Missouri around 6,000 years ago----things like that are generally accepted as fact?

"things like that" are not wedges that by necessity have to disconnect a person from faith/belief in God and in a resurrected Redeemer/Savior of mankind.

I know polygamy and its associated issues can act as a stumbling block. I can see why this has become a "deal breaker" for you. Beyond what I've said in this thread, I don't know what else I can do or say to help you one way or the other at this point. I'm expressing my POV, and you're doing the same.

The questions you posed and then answered a the end of your last post are answered correctly as far as I can see/remember from the past reading I've done. I have no argument with you there. When all is said and done we each come away with our own conclusions based upon the data we have and the life experience we've encountered.

I'm willing to concede that I don't know all the answers (in fact, I'm one of those that has more questions than answers) as to why we are left with some troubling/puzzling issues not only with polygamy, but in other areas of inquiry regarding foundational issues and teachings regarding Christianity and Mormonism in particular. The world is a messy place and yet it's a wonderful place. Mormonism has also had its "messy" moments as the gospel has been restored line upon line and precept upon precept. Here a little and there a little. The church is also a wonderful place with some beautiful doctrines concerning eternity and the nature and possibilities of man to progress and become more like God.

I suppose the difference between an educated believer and an educated non-believer is the amount of ambiguity and messiness one is able to absorb/accept and still see the hand of God in the tapestry we refer to as the restoration.

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

...the Church teaches that we always have a middleman between us and God, and it's none of our business if that middleman does things that are inconsistent with him holding that office and the authority he purports to hold over us. But it most definitely is the business of our church leaders if we break the rules, one of which is not to criticize our leaders even if the criticism is true.

No. The church teaches that we each have the gift of the Holy Ghost to give us personal revelation. We are taught, yes, that it is inappropriate to publicly criticize our leaders. It would, however, be appropriate to conference with them privately if we have concerns.

But ... since members have been told explicitly that it is inappropriate even to write about their doctrinal doubts to the First Presidency (who alone have the right to receive revelation for the whole CoJCoLDS, no?), because they are just too busy, how on earth can it be "appropriate to conference with them privately if we have concerns"?

I've willing to concede that I don't know all the answers (in fact, I'm one of those that has more questions than answers) as to why we are left with some troubling/puzzling issues not only with polygamy, but in other areas of inquiry regarding foundational issues and teachings regarding Christianity and Mormonism in particular. The world is a messy place and yet it's a wonderful place. Mormonism has also had its "messy" moments as the gospel has been restored line upon line and precept upon precept. Here a little and there a little. The church is also a wonderful place with some beautiful doctrines concerning eternity and the nature and possibilities of man to progress and become more like God.

Surely the important thing about a proposition bearing upon the proper conduct of a life supposed to be eternal is not whether it is 'beautiful", but whether it is true?

I find that religious believers, and Mormons in particular, frequently claim that they remain members of their religion because they find its teachings attractive. This seems to be just as imprudent as choosing the right antibiotic to take for a life-threatening infection on the grounds that it has a pleasant taste, or a pretty color. Why should it be assumed that the truth is likely to be attractive or comforting?

I suppose the difference between an educated believer and an educated non-believer is the amount of ambiguity and messiness one is able to absorb/accept and still see the hand of God in the tapestry we refer to as the restoration.

And this difference is in most cases not a mere accident or matter of taste, but is the result of the fact that the majority of religious believers (converts aside) have been immersed since babyhood in an environment where propositions that strike an outsider as frankly bizarre (such as, for LDS, a universal flood, the Jaredite barges and the existence of a great Judeo-Christian culture in the pre-Columbian Americas) are accepted as reasonable, and evidence against them discounted or ignored.

A crucial point here is that the ability of the believer to "absorb/accept" doctrinal or historical "ambiguity and messiness" is usually limited to his or her own religion. Do LDS usually display the ability to be tolerant of the Roman Catholic cult of the Virgin Mary, for instance, or of the veneration of many other Christians for the cross? So it is not that the believer is in some way constitutionally more tolerant and broad-minded in general , and that the non-believer is a poor intolerant pedantic kind of guy, - the believer has simply been inoculated against being concerned by the particular brand of the bizarre that his own religion teaches.

[_mentalgymnast]

A crucial point here is that the ability of the believer to "absorb/accept" doctrinal or historical "ambiguity and messiness" is usually limited to his or her own religion. Do LDS usually display the ability to be tolerant of the Roman Catholic cult of the Virgin Mary, for instance, or of the veneration of many other Christians for the cross? So it is not that the believer is in some way constitutionally more tolerant and broad-minded in general , and that the non-believer is a poor intolerant pedantic kind of guy, - the believer has simply been inoculated against being concerned by the particular brand of the bizarre that his own religion teaches.

I can only speak for myself, but I subscribe to the eleventh article of faith where it says,

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

In reference to your inoculation statement, yes, some members of the church are inoculated against the harder issues that are difficult to wrap one's mind around and others aren't. But again, I think this also has much to do with the degree of ambiguity and messiness that one is able to successfully deal with. Those educated folks that become dis-affected members or leave the church obviously have a lower threshold for ambiguity and messiness than those educated folks that are able to continue on in the faith.

Regards,
MG

[_consiglieri]

TOTAL BS. I teach a Sunday School class and whenever I bring up new stuff that they never heard before, the class loves it. And as class member, I have brought up Masonry in EQ and other equally interesting things and you can hear a pindrop. The instructor has the full attention of the class awaiting an answer.

Most people are tired of hearing the same old, rhetoric every single class. They are generally interested in these topics. I gurantee if you bring up how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by putting a stone in a hat, the entire class will be interested.

I have to second LDSTS on this. In my four years of teaching gospel doctrine class not so long ago, my class was extremely interested mainly because I did not restrict my lessons to the correlated manual pablum. I devoted an entire class to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and every soul was completely attentive from beginning to end.

They also were quite interested in the way Joseph Smith actually translated the majority of the Book of Mormon, and I had Elder Nelson's quote handy just in case anybody got out of hand.

I even did a demonstration in front of the class with an old beat up hat into which I put my luminous watch and stuck my face over it. I actually did all of this before I introduced what I would be talking about. Lots of people were laughing their guts out at my demonstration.

I then stopped and looked at them and asked if anybody knew why I was showing them this.

Nobody raised a hand.

I told them because this is how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

It was a great lesson.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri