Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weren't other prophets polygamists? So did god explain to Wilford why it was ok before and suddenly not anymore?
Yes. Almost all (but not all) of the apostles and prophets between the 1840s and 1890 were polygamists.
It was "ok" before and not "ok" after because God commanded it before and forbade it after.
Whether or not you approve of the morality of plural marriage and whether or not you believe it was from God, there is no denying that it was an incredible social power that welded the Latter-day Saints into a unique, strongly bonded cultural force that is still felt to this day. The practice of plural marriage forged "a people" who to this day see themselves as much more than merely a Church. It was a terrific burden, particularly on the Church leaders, but in hindsight it created a "modern Israel" in the midst of a culture that pushed and continues to push for assimilation and accommodation.
We neither know the reason for its instigation (though some have suggested that it was part of the "Restitution of All Things," others have suggested it as a test and a refiner of the saints, and others have talked about its signal importance as I described in the paragraph above) nor do we know exactly the reason for its termination (though one could argue that it had served its purpose and that the next phase of the Church involved its reaching out into the world where that practice would hinder rather than help the work of God, and/or one could argue that it had reached the point where the disadvantages to the work of God then outweighed the benefits to the saints, and/or one could argue that it had succeed as a refiner and tester of the Saints and was no longer needed).
I believe that after death our spirits go wide awake and aware to a temporary "spirit world" to learn, interact with each other, and await the resurrection.
Some time after the coming "Millennium" this planet will be celestialized and become the abode of those who are worthy of a celestial glory, similar to that of God the Father and Jesus Christ.
One of the qualifications for the highest "mansion" in the celestial kingdom is the ordinance of eternal marriage. The apostolic sealing power to perform that ordinance in holy temples for the living, and by proxy for the dead, came to this earth along with the prophesied restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ about 1830.
Latter-day Saints consider the power to choose for ourselves to be an eternal principle that God extends to everyone. If in the end Joseph Smith has more than one wife in the celestial kingdom, it will be because those who are his wives have of their own free will chosen to be so.
You didn't answer the question. Since through "revelation" God supposedly said that it is now wrong to practice polygamy, does that mean that Joseph has to give up his extra wives in heaven? Also if you read into Joseph and his wives you will find that free will had little to do with some of his acquisitions. He told women that God had commanded him to take them as his wife. If they disagreed with him they were disagreeing with GOD.
Yes. Almost all (but not all) of the apostles and prophets between the 1840s and 1890 were polygamists.
It was "ok" before and not "ok" after because God commanded it before and forbade it after.
Whether or not you approve of the morality of plural marriage and whether or not you believe it was from God, there is no denying that it was an incredible social power that welded the Latter-day Saints into a unique, strongly bonded cultural force that is still felt to this day. The practice of plural marriage forged "a people" who to this day see themselves as much more than merely a Church. It was a terrific burden, particularly on the Church leaders, but in hindsight it created a "modern Israel" in the midst of a culture that pushed and continues to push for assimilation and accommodation.
We neither know the reason for its instigation (though some have suggested that it was part of the "Restitution of All Things," others have suggested it as a test and a refiner of the saints, and others have talked about its signal importance as I described in the paragraph above) nor do we know exactly the reason for its termination (though one could argue that it had served its purpose and that the next phase of the Church involved its reaching out into the world where that practice would hinder rather than help the work of God, and/or one could argue that it had reached the point where the disadvantages to the work of God then outweighed the benefits to the saints, and/or one could argue that it had succeed as a refiner and tester of the Saints and was no longer needed).
I think I have an answer for you. Joseph smith and his followers like to have sex with multiple women. Then the US government threatened the church and the church changed its mind so they could continue to collect your money. See all you have to do is look at it objectively and it will all make sense.
I do have a question though. Why could men have multiple wives but women couldnt have multiple husbands. Seems kind of sexist to me.
What do mormons have to say about Joseph Smith's beginnings as a con man seeking treasure with his magical stones.
It is clear that he had a history of conning people so why would anyone believe that he was telling the truth, even with all of the historical flaws of the book of Mormon. If he were really inspired by god, why would he be so wrong about the basic history of the Americas?
Your question really isn't a question as much as a way of stating two things that you believe: one about Joseph Smith and one about the Book of Mormon. I will respond to them and ignore your faux question.
(1) Joseph Smith was not a "con man." The evidence doesn't support that, and the very reason for the existence of that charge is that those who reject his claims about his religious experience want to use that as part of the argument to attack his religious claims. But Joseph Smith is in good company. Another famous religious leader was also unjustly accused of being "a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." Reputation is a fickle thing, and determined enemies can usually come up with enough "evidence" to make a charge stick for people who are inclined to believe it already.
(2) There are no historical flaws with the Book of Mormon. I don't mean to say that much of it can be proved to have happened from outside sources, but rather that the Book of Mormon neither conflicts with what IS known and that the Book of Mormon does indeed bear the marks of an ancient Semitic text with roots in the 6th century BC Jewish culture and with interesting parallels and ties to ancient New World cultures.
Given that Joseph Smith was neither a con man nor a producer of a false history, I have no problems going on to examine and accept his religious claims.
Your question really isn't a question as much as a way of stating two things that you believe: one about Joseph Smith and one about the Book of Mormon. I will respond to them and ignore your faux question.
This is a real question. How do mormons justify believing Joseph Smith?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb
(1) Joseph Smith was not a "con man." The evidence doesn't support that, and the very reason for the existence of that charge is that those who reject his claims about his religious experience want to use that as part of the argument to attack his religious claims. But Joseph Smith is in good company. Another famous religious leader was also unjustly accused of being "a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." Reputation is a fickle thing, and determined enemies can usually come up with enough "evidence" to make a charge stick for people who are inclined to believe it already.
So charging people money to find treasure using magic seer stones doesn't strike you as a con? Also I don't trust the reputation of any "holy prophet" or religious figure. And yes, a reputation of using people for money would lead me to believe that this is just another attempt at getting people's cash. Religion after all is very lucrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb
(2) There are no historical flaws with the Book of Mormon. I don't mean to say that much of it can be proved to have happened from outside sources, but rather that the Book of Mormon neither conflicts with what IS known and that the Book of Mormon does indeed bear the marks of an ancient Semitic text with roots in the 6th century BC Jewish culture and with interesting parallels and ties to ancient New World cultures.
Quote:
Historicity of the Book of Mormon
Most adherents of the LDS movement consider the Book of Mormon to be a historically accurate account, although unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon, though inspired, may not be a literal historical record.[30] Most outside the LDS movement do not consider it accurate, and the majority opinion is that it is contradicted by scientific and archaeological research, virtually all of which has been conducted since the book's publication. The following are the principal areas where historical and scientific criticism are focused:
The lack of correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.[82]
The lack of linguistic connection between any Native American language or language family and Near Eastern languages.[95]
The lack of DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East.
So yeah there are many reasons to believe that the book of mormon is not historically accurate, and your apologist answers aren't doing you any justice. Is the answer to my question that you just don't know about these things? Or are you in serious denial?
You didn't answer the question. Since through "revelation" God supposedly said that it is now wrong to practice polygamy, does that mean that Joseph has to give up his extra wives in heaven?
No. Whether or not plural marriage is allowed, commanded, or forbidden on earth is not relevant to what God does in heaven. Even staunch Christian monogamists have to admit that at least God allowed, if not encouraged, polygamy during some Old Testament times. I doubt that those people would claim that God's command or tolerance of that behavior meant that God's eternal morality was fickle or that heavenly relationships were fluctuating as God's people on earth followed various social (or God-commanded) norms on marriage.
Quote:
Also if you read into Joseph and his wives you will find that free will had little to do with some of his acquisitions. He told women that God had commanded him to take them as his wife. If they disagreed with him they were disagreeing with GOD.
Yes, there were a lot of different situations during the early days as plural marriage was being presented to the saints. You will also know then that not all such "commandments" were actually intended to result in a marriage. Some were along the lines of an Abrahamic test, such as Vilate Kimball and Loenora Taylor, where people agreed to plural marriage but were then immediately told that they were not expected to live it. Others were initially quite opposed to such a thing (and said so) but later came to sincerely and emphatically believe that it was really God's will and command. And there was no violation of free will in this. Some did indeed say no and nothing happened to them or their families in terms of their reputation or standing in the Church.
The entire plural marriage issue, including polyandry, is a difficult and complex issue that does not lend itself to short blurbs back and forth on a message board. Much of the evidence and testimony is late and/or second or third hand, and many people who could have clarified things either never spoke about it or did so in somewhat cryptic ways. Professional historians have spent years examining all of this to determine what did and didn't happen and why, and little of such work agrees with the harsh mocking that is found on most anti-Mormon websites (nor, I should add, with some of the inaccurate or sugar-coated responses I have seen from the LDS side).
For what it's worth, I totally understand how an honest and sincere person can look at the evidence and come up with very negative view of Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders in this area. For myself, I happen to believe that Joseph Smith was a good man and a prophet of God, and my view of the evidence leads me to a different conclusion than is reached by those starting out with the assumption that he was probably a con man and a lecher.
I think I have an answer for you. Joseph smith and his followers like to have sex with multiple women. Then the US government threatened the church and the church changed its mind so they could continue to collect your money. See all you have to do is look at it objectively and it will all make sense.
That is certainly one way of looking at it and one explanation for it. But I find other explanations to be equal or better at explaining all the facts.
Quote:
I do have a question though. Why could men have multiple wives but women couldnt have multiple husbands. Seems kind of sexist to me.
They did at times. That's another part of the attack on Joseph Smith and plural marriage.
For what it's worth, I totally understand how an honest and sincere person can look at the evidence and come up with very negative view of Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders in this area. For myself, I happen to believe that Joseph Smith was a good man and a prophet of God, and my view of the evidence leads me to a different conclusion than is reached by those starting out with the assumption that he was probably a con man and a lecher.
Props Paul you are an amazing apologist. Actually I never started with an assumption of the Mormon church. I have just done a lot of research on the church since a family member of mine was considering joining. I am in no way against Mormon people, in fact I care a lot about them. that is why it bothers me so much that they have been lied to. I just want them to make up their own minds and part of that is getting information that you will not hear in church. This goes for all organized religions as well.
This is a real question. How do mormons justify believing Joseph Smith?
Because they believe he was a good and godly man who was actually a prophet as indicated by his deeds and the testimony of those around him. The Book of Mormon is one of those things that is believed to be a strong piece of evidence for his apostolic calling.
Quote:
So charging people money to find treasure using magic seer stones doesn't strike you as a con?
No, not if it is normal for the culture and the payee initiates the transaction and all parties involved believe that such a thing is possible and all actions are being done sincerely.
Quote:
Also I don't trust the reputation of any "holy prophet" or religious figure. And yes, a reputation of using people for money would lead me to believe that this is just another attempt at getting people's cash. Religion after all is very lucrative.
Well, that could very well be true. But Joseph Smith suffered tremendously in his life because of his religious claims. You need to read a bit more history of his life. He was also an extremely generous man and beloved by the people.
Once, as the Mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois [Joseph Smith] was told of a black man in Nauvoo named Anthony who had sold liquor on Sunday; which was a violation of the Nauvoo City Code. Mormon writer Mary Frost Adams tells us what happened:
"While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child." (Young Woman’s Journal, p.538)
The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery.
There are many stories like this of Joseph's kindness and generosity. This is one of the few times in his life that Joseph Smith wasn't close to poverty. His trust and forgiving nature was part of the reason he ended up getting assassinated.
Quote:
So yeah there are many reasons to believe that the book of mormon is not historically accurate, and your apologist answers aren't doing you any justice. Is the answer to my question that you just don't know about these things? Or are you in serious denial?
To begin with, wikipedia articles relating to anything Mormon are thoroughly controlled by anti-Mormons, who instantly remove anything that they deem positive, regardless of accuracy, unless they are so thoroughly footnoted beyond nearly anything else on wikipedia that you could almost win a lawsuit with the documentation. Believe me, I'm a wikipedia editor and have watched it happen many times. You need to learn to take anything related to Mormonism on wikipedia with a grain of salt. As an example, take a look at the "Reformed Egyptian" article there. It begins from two completely false premises (that "reformed Egyptian" is a language and that it was used somewhere outside of the the Book of Mormon record) and then it proceeds to bash away for the entire article. We've managed to get a little section in at the bottom, but note how John Gee is described. John Gee has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University and is currently a Egyptologist at BYU. He is also editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. He is writing in his area of expertise. Anywhere else he would be described as a "scholar," but wikipedia describes him as a "Mormon apologist."
Each one of those things you raise has been answered many times and for most (but not all) there are excellent responses. Some charges are simply ridiculous. I don't want to turn this thread into a purely Book of Mormon thread, but if you want to start a new thread where we deal with specific issues on the Book of Mormon, I'd be happy to do so. I would suggest, however, that you become familiar with the current LDS responses to those criticisms so that we can start out a step ahead of the process. A good place to start would be the FAIR wiki. In most cases you will see where I will probably start in any response I make to your attacks.
You didn't answer the question. Since through "revelation" God supposedly said that it is now wrong to practice polygamy...
Your smirk regarding modern prophets receiving revelation in our time as prophets did anciently is noted by those of us who know that God still cares enough to speak to His children on earth.
Apparently you wish to discuss LDS religious beliefs and practices from an historical perspective and in an intellectual manner. I am pleased that Paul, who is much more knowledgeable about such things than I am, has engaged and responded to your comments.
I acknowledge its value but personally I don't pay much attention to arm of flesh learning when it comes to being perfectly content with my membership in the LDS Church. I found out for myself from God via His Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith was His chosen prophet of the restoration. I accept the fact that Joseph was human, not infallible, and did make mistakes during the brief lifetime his enemies allowed before murdering him. My guess is that all of God's chosen prophets were also human and subject to error.
I personally base my testimony and faith in spiritual things on spiritual experiences and am confident that academics and apologists on both sides of the arm of flesh inquiry can take care of themselves equally well. I doubt that there is a single criticism of the LDS Church that has not been validly responded to at such LDS-friendly sites as:
I wish you the very best with your research and hope that you will consider studying at official LDS sources as well, if only to find out why so many millions of people all over the world bear firm testimony that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is all that it claims to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God supposedly said that it is now wrong to practice polygamy, does that mean that Joseph has to give up his extra wives in heaven? Also if you read into Joseph and his wives you will find that free will had little to do with some of his acquisitions. He told women that God had commanded him to take them as his wife. If they disagreed with him they were disagreeing with GOD.
