1. Gospel is restored. Book of Mormon written. God promises to destroy any prophet who leads church astray.
Was it BY or Woodruff who said a prophet will not lead church astray? And what specifically is meant by leading church astray? you aren't saying that Joseph Smith lead Church astray so that means the statements made by leaders after Joseph Smith about leading the Church astray show that Joseph Smith was fallen and the church is astray are you?
2. Joseph introduces polygamy and hides it; claims it's from God, but God knows it isn't.
3. Saints question the rumors. Joseph lies about it from the pulpit and in the newspaper.
4. God removes Joseph's protection and Joseph dies young.
The church has been astray ever since, with occasional pushes to move it back on track.
I'm not saying your theory couldn't be the case, I just don't think its th eonly possibility. I think Joseph Smith could have been wrong on a number of levels and have not necessary led the church astray, of course depending on what is meant by leading the church astray.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:And, as I said, it quite reasonable to find Joseph Smith' behavior troubling particularly in the realm of polygamy. Putting myself in his shoes, having to live his life, feel the pressure of his life, and practice polygamy as directly and personally commanded of God--my goodness, I don't know how I'd handle it, or how I'd behave.
Cowdery, Whitmer, Emma, Law, and many others closely associated with Smith reject the doctrinal basis for polygamy, yet accept Smith as a prophet.
When you put yourself in Smith shoes, why are you assuming that Smith was commanded to practice polygamy?
jon wrote:Seems like it may be difficult to distinguish between revelation and blunder...
I think that's true in some cases more than others. The realm of revelation isn't easy.
If you claim to speak for God, then you probably better have a better track record than sometimes getting it right.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Runtu wrote: Did John Bennett have sex with his spiritual wives? Where are the children?
Or William Smith for that matter.
The question is an indictment of Joseph Smith, not a defense.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Jaybear wrote:Cowdery, Whitmer, Emma, Law, and many others closely associated with Smith reject the doctrinal basis for polygamy, yet accept Smith as a prophet.
When you put yourself in Smith shoes, why are you assuming that Smith was commanded to practice polygamy?
I believe he was sincere in his belief. Whether he was actually commanded or if he just thought he was, I think I'm safe to run on that assumption...mostly because I am a believer, afterall.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
harmony wrote:If you claim to speak for God, then you probably better have a better track record than sometimes getting it right.
This I don't' quite get. This seems to imply that means one must all the time get it right. I don't think we should expect that at all, knowing what we know of humanity anyway. Everyone at some point will get something wrong--why assume a prophet would be any different?
Some people, as it is, will expect a prophet to always get it right, I guess, while others, obviously, do not expect a prophet to always get it right. The percentage of right and not right tolerance will vary for each.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
So far, no one has provided any counter-evidence regarding this issue, even though Droopy assured me that I've disingenuously ignored such evidence. Nevo and bcspace have disagreed with my response to the evidence (with bc attacking my character for good measure), but no one has provided any evidence to dispute the fact that Joseph Smith married women (and consummated those marriages) without Emma's knowledge or consent.
stemelbow wrote: This I don't' quite get. This seems to imply that means one must all the time get it right. I don't think we should expect that at all, knowing what we know of humanity anyway. Everyone at some point will get something wrong--why assume a prophet would be any different?
Some people, as it is, will expect a prophet to always get it right, I guess, while others, obviously, do not expect a prophet to always get it right. The percentage of right and not right tolerance will vary for each.
If a prophet doesn't always "get it right," "knowing what we know of humanity," what's the use of having a prophet?
Morley wrote: If a prophet doesn't always "get it right," "knowing what we know of humanity," what's the use of having a prophet?
If you are LDS, it gives you a leader you can follow without question and not be held responsible for it. Obedience is rewarded, not inquiry. There is no reward for the member that asks why, only those that do. (Unless your name is Lee.)
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."