The greater fraud?

[_beefcalf]

I am honestly baffled that anyone who professes to believe in Smith could hear these charges and not attempt to discover everything possible to either support or refute those charges.

So why not you?

What am I supposed to do? I'm not a student of history, nor a crime scene investigator. I believe there is much misinformation on Joseph Smith. I don't have the resources to investigate every claim someone makes against my faith.

I can suggest that the least advantageous thing for you to do is nothing.

Try this: You can do it in about 8 minutes.

Read Jacob 2, vs 23 through 32 (although you should probably read the entire chapter to see there is no issue with context)

I propose you will come away with an unequivocal denunciation of polygamy, multiple wives and concubines.

Done?

Ok, now read D&C 132, vs 61-63 (again, reading more is certainly recommended for context)

I propose that these scriptures are a clearly distinct contradiction to those in Jacob 2.

Finished?

Without even bringing into it the evidences of what Smith did in Kirtland and Nauvoo, we already have a problem. Remember that in Jacob, multiple wives were an abomination. Did God change his mind?

That shoulda took less than eight minutes. For extra credit, you may continue below...

Without even referencing any material which might be deemed 'anti', please go and read Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" and Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness"

From these two, it will become apparent that Smith broke all of the 'rules' of polygamy as enumerated by D&C 61-63

(1) must have consent of first wife
(2) plural wives must be virgins
(3) plural wives must not then be with other men
(4) used only for procreation
(5) obey the law of the land (actually from AoF#12)

So, we have LDS doctrine in the Book of Mormon, Jacob, clearly stating that polygamy is an abomination. Then we have D&C 132 disregarding the Book of Mormon (contradiction #1) and enumerating rules of polygamy. Then we have Joseph Smith practicing polygamy in complete and total contradiction to all of the rules (contradiction #2).

These are some of the things that have led some of us to conclude that things are not as the official teachings of the church say they are.

[_bcspace]

bcspace:

Let me go over this real quick-like

1) people who are not Mormons
2) people who are Mormons

A) people who do not know about the problems in LDS doctrine/history
B) people who do know about the problems in LDS doctrine/history

1+A = most people on the planet.
1+B = most critics on this board. You may call them anti-Mormon, I would say pro-Truth

2+A = __________________
2+B = __________________

If I understand his theory correctly, Shades has given the label 'Chapel Mormons' to 2+A, and the label 'Internet Mormon' to 2+B.

Do you dislike his labels or do you dispute his categorization?

[EDIT to add:]
please... please... do not say 'There are no problems in LDS doctrine/history"

I've heard of the purported problems in LDS doctrine/history. But every time time I've researched them, I've not found them to be problems at all.

Do you dislike his labels or do you dispute his categorization?

They don't seem to have anything to do with supposed problems in LDS doctrine/history nor with anything regarding being in the chapel or on the internet.

[_beefcalf]

Asbestosman,

Any chance you were able to read Jacob 2 and D&C 132?

[_beefcalf]

I've heard of the purported problems in LDS doctrine/history. But every time time I've researched them, I've not found them to be problems at all.

bc,

The disparity between Jacob 2 and D&C 132 seems to be real enough. From your point-of-view, what mitigates this issue? Is it that between 1830, when the Lord declared the Book of Mormon to be perfectly correct, and 1831, when Smith began to practice polygamy, God changed his mind about it? Or was God attempting to deceive the membership about the nature of polygamy, while allowing Smith to practice it in secret? Was God just joshing us about the 12th Article of Faith?

I see this as a pretty significant problem, and most of the things one might say to mitigate this problem introduce even larger problems.

So, I'm really curious how you work this out for yourself.

Thanks in advance.

[_Hades]

What I've learned from the believers so far is that sometimes it's best to simply sweep things under the rug and pretend they aren't there. Then you can go on your merry way living the gospel as it should be lived.

[_asbestosman]

I can suggest that the least advantageous thing for you to do is nothing.

Try this: You can do it in about 8 minutes.

Read Jacob 2, vs 23 through 32 (although you should probably read the entire chapter to see there is no issue with context)

I propose you will come away with an unequivocal denunciation of polygamy, multiple wives and concubines.

Done?

Yes. I've read those verses dozens of times.

Ok, now read D&C 132, vs 61-63 (again, reading more is certainly recommended for context)

I propose that these scriptures are a clearly distinct contradiction to those in Jacob 2.

Finished?

Yes.

Without even bringing into it the evidences of what Smith did in Kirtland and Nauvoo, we already have a problem. Remember that in Jacob, multiple wives were an abomination. Did God change his mind?

God changed the commandment. He also changed the commandment about circumcision. It used to be so important that God was ready to kill people over it (Exodus 4:25-26). It is an abomination to disobey God.

Without even referencing any material which might be deemed 'anti', please go and read Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" and Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness"

It may not be 'anit' per-se, but it is advanced material. I do not take interpretations of history as fact--at best it's a guess based on the best available evidece. I rather doubt that Bushman is unaware of the questions you have raised. In fact I'm pretty sure he doesn't see them as contradictions.

[_beefcalf]

Asbestosman,

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I do not take interpretations of history as fact--at best it's a guess based on the best available evidece.

Nobody alive today, not even the oldest apostles in Salt Lake City, were alive to personally see the events in Kirkland, Nauvoo and Missouri. All of us, every single one of us, if we have an opinion on what happened back then, must have developed or borrowed an interpretation of history at some point.

All we have at this point are journal entries, manuscripts, printed copies of typeset books, letters and court records. That's it. There is nobody left alive to interview who witnessed those events. Every scrap of data you and I deal with concerning the veracity of the Restoration must come to us through these sources. Every scripture, every quote, every revelation, every accusation, every defense.

One group of people reads those things that were written between 1827 and ~1844 and they interpret that history and conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Another group of people reads those things that were written between 1827 and ~1844 and they interpret that history and conclude that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God.

I think I understand why you say that you do not take interpretations of history as fact, but isn't that what you've done by accepting the interpretation supplied by the LDS church? The fact that for many years I allowed the church to supply me with their interpretation unquestioned is a fact I have since come to regret.

[_asbestosman]

I think I understand why you say that you do not take interpretations of history as fact, but isn't that what you've done by accepting the interpretation supplied by the LDS church?

Not quite. I've had to change my interpretation about the First Vision over the years based on information I obtained from the Ensign about multiple versions. I take the basic story as fact, but I think there may be some interesting details which I still don't have--some of which may cause me to further change my interpretation of events.

This is different than mathematics where facts are relatively concrete--they are the natural consequence of the axioms or assumptions we make for the model / problem at hand. That's why I love math. I could always argue my interpretation of the problem as long as I was careful and stated reasonable assumptions.

[_beefcalf]

That's cool, asbestosman...

It's hard to imagine you haven't heard it all, after nearly 5000 posts and 4 years here.

I think I am responding to my own experience of having seen a sanitized, whitewashed version of Joseph Smith presented to me for my sustaining vote, as it were, only to find that all the things that might have made me change my mind had been deliberately hidden or purged from the narrative.

If someone knows about all of the things Smith did during his short life and can still muster the faith to believe he was a man of God, worthy of our admiration, then... to each his own. What I seek is to give people that which the LDS Church denied me: the whole story. I don't really care too much what you do with that information once you have it, but I distrust any organization that asks you to believe something and then hides the evidence which might cause you to question that belief.

[_Dr. Shades]

What am I supposed to do? I'm not a student of history, nor a crime scene investigator. I believe there is much misinformation on Joseph Smith. I don't have the resources to investigate every claim someone makes against my faith.

Do you also believe there is much misinformation on David Koresh? I suppose you haven't drawn a conclusion about him either way, since you don't have the resouces to investigate every claim someone makes against his faith, right?

I do not take interpretations of history as fact--at best it's a guess based on the best available evidece.

Since I'm sure you aren't one of those people who operate on a double-standard, I'm sure you don't take interpretations of the history of the Branch Davidians as fact--realizing that at best it's a guess based on the best available evidence.