DiscussMormonism.com

Gaz's post on another thread got me thinking about prophets, even great prophets, and mistakes they make as human beings which can skew their judgment.

David was a great prophet. He did many great things, and was extremely close to the Lord. Yet, he lusted after Bathsheba, and went to great lengths to ensure that she became his wife, at the cost of plotting the death of her husband by sending him into war. After this incident, his judgment became skewed. According to scripture, he lost his eternal inheritance, and was never the same as far as prophetic direction, etc.

Could this type of situation not also occurred with Joseph Smith? He lusted after Fanny Alger. His polygamy "prophecy" allowed him to act on his urges, as well as put Emma in her place through section 132.

His judgment became skewed. That wouldn't lessen his translation of the Book of Mormon, or many things he did as far as establishing the early Church, but it could explain how it might be possible for the concept of plural marriage to not, in fact, be "of God", or a way of life that God found truly desirable for His children.

The difference is that David was confronted by Nathan and repented. Joseph Smith was not confronted, apart from women rejecting him, and did not repent.

richardMdBorn wrote:The difference is that David was confronted by Nathan and repented. Joseph Smith was not confronted, apart from women rejecting him, and did not repent.

He didn't? How do you know? And David....hmmm he murdered to get one of his wives. I do not think Smith did that.

Oh and David did not repent of polygamy now did he. Nathan did not require that of him


Last of all, according to William Marks Joseph did indeed repent of polygamy and planned to do away with it. Unfortunately he was murdered before he had the chance.

Jason Bourne wrote:
Last of all, according to William Marks Joseph did indeed repent of polygamy and planned to do away with it. Unfortunately he was murdered before he had the chance.

Jason -- do you have a source for William Marks statement ??

Gazelam wrote:

What???

Jason Bourne wrote:

richardMdBorn wrote:The difference is that David was confronted by Nathan and repented. Joseph Smith was not confronted, apart from women rejecting him, and did not repent.

He didn't? How do you know? And David....hmmm he murdered to get one of his wives. I do not think Smith did that.

Oh and David did not repent of polygamy now did he. Nathan did not require that of him

Last of all, according to William Marks Joseph did indeed repent of polygamy and planned to do away with it. Unfortunately he was murdered before he had the chance.

Why did Joseph Smith order the destruction of the printing press for the Nauvoo Expositor? It seems to me that he was disturbed that the sole issue of this paper revealed that he was practicing polygamy. This does not seem consistent with the idea that he planned to do away with it. On 5/26/1844, he stated, "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." Thus, he was lying about polygamy a month before his murder on 6/27/44.

Liz, what makes you think David was a great (not to mention real), prophet?

Joseph Smith's character does not seem to be very good prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. His treasure hunting, lying, womanizing etc was a long term problem no?

~dancer~

I'm not sure why Joseph Smith ought to command so much loyalty that ways are looked for and developed to keep believing in him despite the evidence to the contrary. If he wasn't really a true prophet, then let him go! Why go through all the trouble and effort trying to find ways to continue believing in him like this? In other words, if his life and works after, say, 1832 or 1833 or so demonstrate that he wasn't actually a true prophet, why is there this need to find a way to continue believing that he at least had been a true prophet up to 1832 or 1833? How does a person believe that God would "restore" his one and only true and living church to the face of the Earth and let it be led for another 12 years or so by a lying, philandering con artist? Does that really make any sense?

What makes more sense, that Joseph Smith really was a lying, philandering con artist but God really did use him anyway to "restore" true Christianity, and priesthood authority, to Earth, or that Joseph Smith was really a lying, philandering con artist and the early Saints were just another mislead group of religious believers lead astray in their lives by yet another charismatic young religious leader?

ps: Gaz, what made you think that picture was a good idea? I'm not alone in being a little mystified by that particular choice.

truth dancer wrote:Liz, what makes you think David was a great (not to mention real), prophet?

One might as well be comparing L. Ron Hubbard to King Solomon.