But Nobody is Interested!

[_Darth J]

Whether or not Joseph Smith was faithful to the Lord's commands in D&C 132 is not our spiritual concern right now?

That assertion seems to conflict with what Jesus told the Nephites.


17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.

3 Nephi 14

That is at the most a slim connection, but I can appreciate that you took it here.

Now, I know that we certainly are not a cult and that we most definitely do not worship Joseph Smith, so why is Jesus' shot-for-shot remake of the Sermon on the Mount here in the Book of Mormon merely "slim" as to evaluating whether Joseph Smith was qualified to be a prophet?

I will repeat the question that you have previously evaded: if Joseph Smith flagrantly violating commandments that were given to him directly by God is not relevant about whether Joseph Smith should be considered to be a prophet, then what possibly could be? (I mean, besides that under the D&C's own terms, doing so would cause him to lose his priesthood authority.)

rest assured most LDS have very little interest in polyandry, at least in my experience. Its not that they see it as a fruit of Joseph Smith--right or wrong. And surely, DJ, you can see why I would think you are left out of the "our" in my quote, right?

Rest assured, most LDS have very little awareness that Joseph Smith practiced polyandry, at least in my experience.

Funny how the Church touts Joseph Smith's character and the faith-promoting narrative of his life so much, what with all of that being at most marginally relevant to the Church's truth claims.

[_stemelbow]

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 don't doubt there is some interest out there. But if the interest is as you suggest then it seems they'd be seeking out the sources to learn these things. but that doesn't generally happen, right? Why not? Lack of interest perhaps?

[_Darth J]

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 don't doubt there is some interest out there. But if the interest is as you suggest then it seems they'd be seeking out the sources to learn these things. but that doesn't generally happen, right? Why not? Lack of interest perhaps?

You are presupposing that "they" are even aware that these issues exist to be sought out.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't doubt there is some interest out there.

Yet you also say:

rest assured most LDS have very little interest in polyandry, at least in my experience.

Which is it?

But if the interest is as you suggest then it seems they'd be seeking out the sources to learn these things. but that doesn't generally happen, right? Why not? Lack of interest perhaps?

Not only are they not told about it, they are explicitly told to avoid any and all sources which might inform them of the facts.

[_mentalgymnast]

Darth:
If Joseph Smith flagrantly violat[ed] commandments that were given to him directly by God is [this] not relevant about whether Joseph Smith should be considered to be a prophet...? (I mean, besides that under the D&C's own terms, doing so would cause him to lose his priesthood authority.)

MG:
It would be well to review those commandments given by God himself that Joseph flagrantly violated. Would you do that for us and make a list?

We would then be able to righteously judge the man and assign him to heaven or hell.

Also, it would be helpful to review the D&C verses you're referring to and how they apply specifically to the list of broken commandments listed in reference to the first question.

Thanks,
MG

[_Darth J]

Darth:
If Joseph Smith flagrantly violat[ed] commandments that were given to him directly by God is [this] not relevant about whether Joseph Smith should be considered to be a prophet...? (I mean, besides that under the D&C's own terms, doing so would cause him to lose his priesthood authority.)

MG:
It would be well to review those commandments given by God himself that Joseph flagrantly violated. Would you do that for us and make a list?

We would then be able to righteously judge the man and assign him to heaven or hell.

Also, it would be helpful to review the D&C verses you're referring to and how they apply specifically to the list of broken commandments listed in reference to the first question.

Thanks,
MG

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14539&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

[_stemelbow]

I don't doubt there is some interest out there.

Yet you also say:

rest assured most LDS have very little interest in polyandry, at least in my experience.

Which is it?

What kind of dichotomy did you create in your heard? I said "most LDS" aren't interested and that there is some interest out there. I see no contradiction. Do you?

Not only are they not told about it, they are explicitly told to avoid any and all sources which might inform them of the facts.

I think that's more of a thing in the past, but I really do believe there is some residual out there--how much I can't be certain.

[_mentalgymnast]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14539&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

These verses in Sec. 132 weren't discussed on that thread:

58 Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

These verses seem to act as a buffer against the purported problem which you've raised. I don't think anyone, including the Lord, has argued that Joseph didn't transgress. But as I asked before, do we send Joseph to heaven or hell as we judge him? As Simon previously said on the linked thread, was there a greater work going on within the scope of the restoration that allowed for transgression of imperfect human beings as the church was being organized?

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14539&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

These verses in Sec. 132 weren't discussed on that thread:


58 Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.

I am uncertain why you bolded that clause, unless you are arguing from ignorance that there are some super-secret rules that only apply to Joseph Smith implied by the "many things." If that is your implication, then a reasonable person would not have to resort to polemics to say that it is extremely cult-like for the prophet to announce that he has received self-serving revelations allowing him to do whatever he wants at the expense of his followers (i.e., Mormons are obligated to go along with whatever Joseph Smith does).

Alternatively, reading that statement in conjunction with the rest of Section 132 simply means that there are many principles related to the priesthood, and the revelation later designated as D&C 132 is one of them.

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.

Your point being what, exactly? You have bolded a clause that cleary says that the Lord will justify a priesthood holder if he does something "according to my law and by my word." In other words, to be justified, you have to do what the Lord says. The corollary is that if a priesthood holder does not do things according to the Lord's law and by his word, that priesthood holder will not be justified. That corollary, although not in those exact words, is explicitly stated in D&C 121.

Joseph Smith did not do what the Lord said in D&C 132 regarding the conditions for plural marriage. He violated every single one of those conditions, repeatedly.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

But we just barely read that to be justified, a priesthood holder has to act according to God's words and God's law. So we are back to:

(a) To be justified in his practice of plural marriage, Joseph Smith would have to follow the conditions of D&C 132. However, Joseph Smith did not do this. Therefore, he was not justified, and "amen to the priesthood, or the authority of that man" under D&C 121.

Or:

(b) The Lord conveniently gives the person claiming to receive this revelation a self-serving escape clause that allows him to do whatever he wants, at the expense of his followers ("Seriously, the Lord said I have to marry you....and you.....and you......"). This is not consistent with, "We're not a cult!"

These verses seem to act as a buffer against the purported problem which you've raised.

These verses indicate that a priesthood holder has to do what the Lord says to be justified. Section 132 is quite explicit that anyone who receives the law of plural marriage has to do it the way the Lord says to do it.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

D&C 132:3-6

I don't think anyone, including the Lord, has argued that Joseph didn't transgress. But as I asked before, do we send Joseph to heaven or hell as we judge him?

It is not a matter of Judgment Day for Joseph Smith; it is a matter of the internal consistency of the Doctrine and Covenants. Remember, the plain language of the scripture says that as long as you are sealed to at least one wife, you can do whatever you want in life except murder, and you have a one-way ticket to the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 132:26). That's why I am guaranteed to go to the Celestial Kingdom no matter what blasphemies I post on this board.

But you can be destroyed in the flesh. I'm pretty sure you would agree that I have made it clear that I do not have a testimony that the LDS Church is the true church, so if I got a temple recommend, for example, I would be doing so unworthily. And I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that I am not worthy to officiate in priesthood ordinances, seeing as how I don't believe in the Church. We're not talking about Joseph Smith's eternal destiny; we are talking about him losing his priesthood authority in this life, which is what D&C 121 says is the inevitable consequence of trying to exercise the priesthood in unrighteousness.

If D&C 132 is a true scripture, then Joseph Smith indisputably violated it, consistently and systematically.

If D&C 132 is not a true scripture, then Joseph Smith promulgated a false revelation (and even then didn't live up to it), making him a false prophet, and the LDS Church is not inspired, because it has canonized and continues to maintain the truth of a false revelation.

If D&C 121 is a true scripture, then Joseph Smith's systematic, wholesale violation of the conditions for plural marriage given in Section 132 would cause the Spirit to withdraw and his priesthood authority to be forfeited.

If D&C 121 is not a true scripture, then the LDS Church is not inspired, because the Church canonized and continues to maintain that D&C 121 is a true scripture. (ETA: And Joseph Smith was a false prophet, because he purported to be God's spokesman when he announced the principles in that section.)

As Simon previously said on the linked thread, was there a greater work going on within the scope of the restoration that allowed for transgression of imperfect human beings as the church was being organized?

Regards,
MG

So, your position would be that the message of D&C 121 is, "The end justifies the means"?

Is that really what the Church has taught, including that section of the D&C, as far as righteousness being the sine qua non of priesthood authority?

The Doctrine and Covenants now says that we are not to practice plural marriage.

Will I be a worthy priesthood holder if I defy what the Lord has revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, and start practicing plural marriage contrary to the conditions the Lord has revealed? (Remember, Jacob in the Book of Mormon said the default position on plural marriage is that it is unrighteous unless the Lord specifically commands it.)

If yes, then why does the Church excommunicate people for practicing polygamy?

If not, then why would Joseph Smith be a worthy priesthood holder when he indisputably defied what the Lord had revealed directly to him regarding the conditions for plural marriage to be acceptable to God?

And given the preamble to D&C 132 about marriage according to God's law, why would God recognize Joseph Smith's plural marriages and bestow them with priesthood power when those marriages consistently violated God's commandments as to the terms under which plural marriage was permissible?

EDIT: fixed where the quotes began and ended so it looks pretty.

[_Jason Bourne]

Should the church make full disclosure of the points of all sides?

What do you mean all sides? If you mean should it present the critic/enemies view point? No. Should it present an honest presentation that is not milk toast, mythical and faith promoting only?

Or isn't it enough that it just tell its side of the story?

If you make a major investment do you want full disclosure? If you send your kids to a college do you want to know the pluses and minuses of that college. If you become a partner in a business do you want to know the details of your operating agreement, covenants not to compete should you leave and so on? When you marry do you want to know as much about your future spouse as possible in order to choose wisely?

Wouldn't you want an organization such as the LDS Church to give you full disclosure before you commit your time, money and life to it? The commitment it requires is as much if not more than any of the above.