Let's see where we can get with this

[_just me]

So in 1843 you are saying that the LORD’s instructions about how to proceed in terms of plural marriage apply retroactively to Joseph Smith. Meaning his (Joseph Smith) actions pre-1843 violated the law that God had later told him, so that means by violating the unknown law he exposed himself as a false prophet even though this very revelation was given through him?

Unknown law?

From the header of D&C 132
"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."

Not only that, bigamy was against the law in Illinois the whole Nauvoo time. God had told the saints that they would not need to break the law of the land to keep his laws. Oops.

[_Molok]

Maybe God was only speaking as a man Just Me.

[_stemelbow]

Unknown law?

From the header of D&C 132
"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."

DJ has, generally, condemned Joseph Smith for laws that were received by Joseph Smith in 1843. But in 1843 the LORD justified Joseph Smith in the very revelation Joseph Smith is claiming is from the LORD. Thus, the violating pre-1843 of the "unknown", as in didn't know pre-1843, set of laws is not a conviction of Joseph Smith's actions pre-1843.

Are you concerned about the 1831 allusion? Are you sure Joseph Smith received the laws outlined by Joseph Smith in 1831, or pre-1843?

[_just me]

Maybe God was only speaking as a man Just Me.

Like.

[_stemelbow]

Hi stem, feel free to ignore me if you wish. I've read the entire thread.

I have a question.

Is there anything that Joseph Smith could have done to lose the mantle of prophet or lose his priesthood? If yes, what?

Thanks.

He could have punch HF square in the nose and pulled his undies up over his head. Anyway, its really God's decision of whether a prophet loses the mantle or not, not my call.

[_Darth J]

Maybe God was only speaking as a man Just Me.

LOL.

[_Buffalo]

Unknown law?

From the header of D&C 132
"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."

Darth J has, generally, condemned Joseph Smith for laws that were received by Joseph Smith in 1843. But in 1843 the LORD justified Joseph Smith in the very revelation Joseph Smith is claiming is from the LORD. Thus, the violating pre-1843 of the "unknown", as in didn't know pre-1843, set of laws is not a conviction of Joseph Smith's actions pre-1843.

Are you concerned about the 1831 allusion? Are you sure Joseph Smith received the laws outlined by Joseph Smith in 1831, or pre-1843?

The reason why the writers of the summary claim Joseph had the revelation in 1931 is that it's the date when Joseph had his first affair. There is no evidence of any revelation in 1931 about polygamy, however. Nor is there any sealing authority for plural marriages at that date.

[_Darth J]

Darth J,

So tell me how the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

I believe you've misunderstood me. I did not say the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

So are you aware that the above statement contradicts your answers to my previous questions and are being disingenuous, or are you really this obtuse?

[_stemelbow]

Okay, let's try this: Why would any institution be desired or useful for believing god when he gives you personal revelation?

I don't know if I buy the premise. If God gives personal revelation to all folks as equally as the prophet, then the only reason for an institution would be for the people to get together and make sure their revelations match up, I suppose.

Those that tell the truth consistently can, for example, be relied upon. Those that lie (particularly about their "religious" practices) cannot be relied upon.

Interesting. I wonder if that's what Jesus had intended when he uttered those words that we read in english, as translated from the greek, which in turn was translated from the aramaic. Or does it mean you are able to see whether a prophet is a prophet when you view the works, as in writings and revelations, and as a result of viewing develop faith that they are from God?

Actually, yes. In the judicial system, where intent is a necessary element for a cause of action or a crime, or is an exacerbating factor, intent is determined as drawn from all the facts and circumstances.

and yet there persists the notion that innocent people get executed from time to time. It ain't a foolproof game you’re up to then. Maybe that’s why God requires we live by faith rather than by the American judicial system, no?

From these facts and circumstances JSJr was simply trying to save his own bacon. Not a very good defense. He wasn't "lying for the Lord" even. He was trying to save his own skin, and his elevated position in Nauvoo.

And this could very well be a case of you attributing intent (ie he was lying to save his own bacon) but you really can’t be sure. Perhaps he had other reasons unknown to you.

[_stemelbow]

The reason why the writers of the summary claim Joseph had the revelation in 1931 is that it's the date when Joseph had his first affair. There is no evidence of any revelation in 1931 about polygamy, however. Nor is there any sealing authority for plural marriages at that date.

No kidding. Joseph Smith wasn't sealed to anyone at the tender age of 125.