Hoping for some thoughts from mormons

benjosh · Jan 9, 2006

SoyLeche said:
Ben,

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about whether or not God is okay with the whole Polygamy thing, but I do want to point out that you have done what most people do when they bring up this passage of scripture: you've ignored what it says next.

Oh, by the way, it looks like you've got your verse numbers wrong, at least according to my book.

Okay - Verse 30 of chapter 2: For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

SoyLeche,

The RLDS versification is different. (Except for Jacob 1:15. I am going back to edit and insert LDS versification for curiously, since that's the version he has.

The verse following was not necessarily, ignored the I will command my people otherwise was not given to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

BenJosh

curiouslyminty · Jan 9, 2006

Thanks Benjosh, I find myself wanting to believe in current revelation from God. But I hit a wall when I feel that LDS's are actually changing the core message I read in the original scriptures. That's why I see the Book of Mormon and say 'ok' and 'i think i get it', but when I look at the leader's and the way the church follows a doctrine that requires revision so often (as it truely has since its inception) I wonder what motive people have to still trust a so fallible prophet.

AKA Inspired scripture I can deal with. Autocratic leaders are where I faulter and need help.. If I had been to a mormon church not associated with the official one I might have not been so.. scarred lets say

I lived in liberty during highschool. Graduated in '00. I went to loyola university for college in new orleans, which is where I was until katrina sorta spun me around. I just finished the move back into town actually!

SoyLeche · Jan 9, 2006

benjosh said:
SoyLeche,

The RLDS versification is different. (Except for Jacob 1:15. I am going back to edit and insert LDS versification for curiously, since that's the version he has.

The verse following was not necessarily, ignored the I will command my people otherwise was not given to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

BenJosh

I can't prove that it was any more than you can prove that it wasn't.

I didn't know that the versification was different. Interesting.

SoyLeche · Jan 9, 2006

benjosh said:
SoyLeche,

The RLDS versification is different. (Except for Jacob 1:15. I am going back to edit and insert LDS versification for curiously, since that's the version he has.

The verse following was not necessarily, ignored the I will command my people otherwise was not given to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

BenJosh

Also, the point of my post wasn't to show that polygamy in the early church was sanctioned by God. I believe that, but have no evidence other than my own experiences with the Holy Ghost. The point was that the Book of Mormon does not say that God is against polygamy at all times. There are times when he commands it.

benjosh · Jan 9, 2006

curiouslyminty said:
Thanks Benjosh, I find myself wanting to believe in current revelation from God. But I hit a wall when I feel that LDS's are actually changing the core message I read in the original scriptures. That's why I see the Book of Mormon and say 'ok' and 'i think i get it', but when I look at the leader's and the way the church follows a doctrine that requires revision so often (as it truely has since its inception) I wonder what motive people have to still trust a so fallible prophet.

AKA Inspired scripture I can deal with. Autocratic leaders are where I faulter and need help.. If I had been to a mormon church not associated with the official one I might have not been so.. scarred lets say

I lived in liberty during highschool. Graduated in '00. I went to loyola university for college in new orleans, which is where I was until katrina sorta spun me around. I just finished the move back into town actually!

I think that when you are considering the Book of Mormon you need take totally out of the context set up by Christian and Mormon commentators.

The basic purpose and scope of the Book of Mormon was introduced by Moroni and he used Bible scriptures to lay out what the work was.

It was for gathering the whole scattered house of Israel. ISAIAH 11 The Native AMericans tracing descent to Lehi (tribe of Manasseh) were to be treated not as savages but brothers of the covenant to the house of Israel.

The two house sof Israel Judah and Ephraim were to come back together and the Levitical priests were to come back into place in gathered Israel. Malachi 3 rd & 4th chapters.

The outpouring of the Holy Ghost, freams , visions JOel 2:28 -32

NOw, if the prophets said nothing about this then Moroni and JOseph Smith are all wet.

But, if they did . . . . . why can't Christians and Mormons engage at the level of what Moroni said. Was Moroni wrong?

If Moroni was wrong then the whole house falls. If he is right, then Christianity may find itself in a big jam on judgment day.

Ether 5:26 RLDS 12:23 LDS
26 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we can not write them; wherefore, when we write, we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
27 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying, Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; and if men come unto me, I will shew unto them their weakness.
28 I give unto men weakness, that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
29 Behold, I will shew unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will shew unto them that faith, hope, and charity, bringeth unto me the fountain of all righteousness.
30 And I, Moroni, having heard these words, was comforted, and said, O Lord, thy righteous will be done, for I know that thou workest unto the children of men according to their faith; for the Brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove, and it was removed.

So, if the Moroni in the book of Mormon is true in what I just quoted and that same Moroni came to JOseph Smith. . . . . . . . then we are being called to humility. . . . . ... to the possibility that God is stronger and more real than our well developed theological points and all of our wrangling about God and how he does things.

You said,

I wonder what motive people have to still trust a so fallible prophet.

I think I can only answer for myself. . . . I don't trust a prophet but I trust that God makes weak things strong to them that walk humbly before him.

I am trying to do that.

BenJosh

benjosh · Jan 9, 2006

SoyLeche said:
I can't prove that it was any more than you can prove that it wasn't.

I didn't know that the versification was different. Interesting.

I am not trying to prove anything. The information of all sides is available. It is a question of what a person chooses to investigate or not.

Ultimately, we do not come before our heavenly Father as a group but as individuals. The choices you make in your life are who you are.

If I can help you in that process I will.

And, I have to think interacting with you is going to also help me.

BenJosh

SoyLeche · Jan 9, 2006

benjosh said:
I am not trying to prove anything. The information of all sides is available. It is a question of what a person chooses to investigate or not.

Ultimately, we do not come before our heavenly Father as a group but as individuals. The choices you make in your life are who you are.

If I can help you in that process I will.

And, I have to think interacting with you is going to also help me.

BenJosh

Must spread Karma

curiouslyminty · Jan 9, 2006

Benjosh- Wow, to be honest I had been seing inconsistancy and problems with most everything I was reading.. what I failed to notice was that there are two disctinct groups of mormons. I mean I knew it but I didnt realize the extent. The Utah group seems to be somewhat shaky and even approach, dare I say it, a cult like status in my mind at points.. although I do honestly see the corrections and changes that the group is making towards the better, I get a sense that once false doctrine is taught and accepted it leaves seeds of doubt for people to find in their search.
RLDS is well.. at the least much more consistant and almost approach a close similarity to orthodox christianity. I'm seeing solutions to my questions now and that was what I intended to find.. and it was right under my nose. lol I realize I'll still see problems but I'm much more hopeful now.

benjosh · Jan 9, 2006

curiouslyminty said:
Benjosh- Wow, to be honest I had been seing inconsistancy and problems with most everything I was reading.. what I failed to notice was that there are two disctinct groups of mormons. I mean I knew it but I didnt realize the extent. The Utah group seems to be somewhat shaky and even approach, dare I say it, a cult like status in my mind at points.. although I do honestly see the corrections and changes that the group is making towards the better, I get a sense that once false doctrine is taught and accepted it leaves seeds of doubt for people to find in their search.
RLDS is well.. at the least much more consistant and almost approach a close similarity to orthodox christianity. I'm seeing solutions to my questions now and that was what I intended to find.. and it was right under my nose. lol I realize I'll still see problems but I'm much more hopeful now.

RLDS is a splintered heritage at best, it has its own problems but it doesn't have to wade through a lot of the more well known objections leveled against the Utah Mormons.

But it sure doesn't meet God has stopped speaking or that the B of M or D&C have a lot of value in our individual spiritual quests.

BenJosh

SoyLeche · Jan 9, 2006

benjosh said:
RLDS is splintered heritage at best, it has its own problems but it doesn't have to wade through a lot of the more well known objections leveled against the Utah Mmormons.

But it sure doesn't meet God has stopped speaking or that the B of M or D&C have a lot of value in our individual spiritual quests.

BenJosh

Curious -

You may be interested in the thread titled "LDS vs RLDS" in the Latter-Day Saint section of the forum. It has been a very interesting discussion.

jonny · Jan 9, 2006

curiouslyminty said:
Benjosh- Wow, to be honest I had been seing inconsistancy and problems with most everything I was reading.. what I failed to notice was that there are two disctinct groups of mormons. I mean I knew it but I didnt realize the extent. The Utah group seems to be somewhat shaky and even approach, dare I say it, a cult like status in my mind at points.. although I do honestly see the corrections and changes that the group is making towards the better, I get a sense that once false doctrine is taught and accepted it leaves seeds of doubt for people to find in their search.

RLDS is well.. at the least much more consistant and almost approach a close similarity to orthodox christianity. I'm seeing solutions to my questions now and that was what I intended to find.. and it was right under my nose. lol I realize I'll still see problems but I'm much more hopeful now.

curiouslyminty · Jan 9, 2006

Thanks Jonny I've only read the first two so far but I sense the sincerity behind the words. And don't mistake me.. I don't believe there is anything sinister behind the mormon church.

And I recognize the numerous attempts to reconcile past mistakes.

but yet... I wonder what the purpose of the BoM was? Did it not fracture the already tragically torn apart christian church in america and the world later? Is it not even now just another place for non-believers to see confusion in the christian world. I believe the New Testiment was added for the purpose of showing Jesus the Christ as our savior and to offer salvation. But what was needed in the BoM? Would God wait an extended time and chip another piece off of christian unity? I don't know the answer to that. Im merely posing the questions in my mind. And wondering what role other religions, no matter how similer to pure orthodoxy they are, play in the grand scheme of things. I'll probably have to wait till I die

I feel like I've talked way to much but I continue to answer lol I can't seem to stop. Stop being so friendly and I'll stop responding :O

SoyLeche · Jan 9, 2006

curiouslyminty said:
I feel like I've talked way to much but I continue to answer lol I can't seem to stop. Stop being so friendly and I'll stop responding :O

This place is very addicting.

benjosh · Jan 9, 2006

jonny said:
I think that the RLDS is in denial about the polygamy thing, but that's a topic for another thread. The LDS and RLDS have the same roots. Any problems that you see with Joseph Smith is shared history between the LDS and RLDS.

jonny, I think denial means you don't want to face up to the truth of something.

Joseph Smith Jr. innocence on the issue of polygamy is a difficult thing for Mormons to face up to because it calls into question the legitimacy of Brigham Young. It puts a lot of pressure on all the testimonies about believing Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the church is true.
I say this, not as an enemy to the restoration, but as one who believes in the truth of the angel visit, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith.

Here is an excerpt of the case for Joseph's innocence o fthe charges of polygamy.

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.... I am innocent of all these charges.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."
Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410411

"Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify ... Utah Mormon polygamy."
President Israel A. Smith, grandson of Joseph the Martyr (Letter to Pamela Price,
September 17, 1956)

Polygamy in the Mormon Church did not originate with the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in the 1840s, but with Jacob Cochran in Saco, Maine in 1818. Later Day Saint missionaries, including Brigham Young, preached among the Cochranites, and later some of these missionaries became polygamists also. Dr. John C. Bennett practiced his own version of spiritual wifery in Nauvoo, which Joseph the Prophet vigorously opposed. Joseph, who had no plural wives, fought to keep polygamy, in any form, from becoming a doctrine of the Church. But soon after his death, some of the highest Church leaders introduced polygamy as a cardinal doctrineand conspired to cover their own adulterous crimes by claiming that Joseph received a revelation commanding the practice, and that he had many wives.

Richard and Pamela Price are continuing to write a series of articles for Vision, entitled Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, to prove that Joseph Smith, Jr. was innocent of polygamy. These articles, with their forty-five years of careful research and extensive documentation, bring startling new evidence that, instead of being a polygamist, Joseph Smith actually fought against the dogma. The first set of articles have been compiled into the book, Joseph Smith Fought PolygamyVolume I,

http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/toc.htm

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

The other side of the story is here for those who have enough fortitude to read it.

BenJosh

Click to expand...

curiouslyminty · Jan 9, 2006

I just came across...

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_258111338.html

The documents include arrest warrants, court transcripts and legal bills from four separate charges filed against Smith. Storms said the cases involved Smith's involvement in glass looking, or treasure seeking, and being a disorderly person.

so hes a crystal ball gazer and a treasure seeker repeatedly (four court times)... but thats not what struck me. go look up the records (they arent on that link but I dont have a scanner to scan them in) he doesn't even mention anything of the BoM in his trials..... so hes looking but hasnt found them yet? and he needs a crystal ball? or he just doesn't know of the books yet and its his hobby? either way... odd

curiouslyminty · Jan 9, 2006

It was charged that Joseph Smith was accused and found guilt of parting a local farmer from his money in a less than honest scheme, commonly known as 'money-digging' or 'glass-looking.' It was reported to have been an activity that brought him rebuke from his soon-to-be father-in-law, Isaac Hale. It is also historically recorded that he was removed from membership in a local Methodist church because of the activity and trial results.

and..
[font=&quot]In an affidavit signed by Hale and published in the Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, Josephs father-in-law said:

"'I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called money diggers; and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by what means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended to discover minerals and hidden treasure.

"'Smith and his father, with several other money-diggers boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards. Young Smith made several visits at my house, and at length asked my consent to his marrying my daughter Emma. This I refused . . . [H]e was a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve. . . . Smith stated to me, that he had given up what he called "glass-looking," and that he expected to work hard for a living . . .

"'Soon after this, I was informed that they had brought a wonderful book of plates down with them . . . The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods.'"

Well I was looking for eye witnesses and i found them. It's like the info on these topics are there. I just didnt know what to look for I guess. So my question is.. does this matter?

[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

curiouslyminty · Jan 9, 2006

On the OTHER side of the argument is

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2002AndR.html

of which I felt it only fair to point to few key remarks.

"Because the two 1826 bills had not only suffered from dampness, but had severe water damage as well, Mr. Poffarl hand-carried the documents to the Yale University's Beinecke Library, which has one of the best document preservation centers in the country."2 The problem with this action is, once you have removed a document from a historical setting and then try to restore it to the same setting, you can't prove that you have not altered the document.

This is pasted directly from the site. I find some of the points on there not quite accurate but I can see the fallibility in just taking anyone at their word. Maybe that will help put things in perspective.

SoyLeche · Jan 9, 2006

curiouslyminty said:
and..
[font=&quot]In an affidavit signed by Hale and published in the Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, Josephs father-in-law said:

Well I was looking for eye witnesses and i found them. It's like the info on these topics are there. I just didnt know what to look for I guess. So my question is.. does this matter?

[/font][font=&quot][/font]

It's common knowledge that Joseph Smith went through a period of treasure hunting and was employed for a time looking for a Spanish Mine. I doubt many people will try and dispute that. It is well documented. It is also fairly clear that he used a "seer stone". I would take up Jonny's suggestion to read Bushman's new biography of Joseph Smith called "Rough Stone Rolling" - he covers that topic fairly well.

benjosh · Jan 9, 2006

curiouslyminty said:
and..
[font=&quot]In an affidavit signed by Hale and published in the Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, Josephs father-in-law said:

Well I was looking for eye witnesses and i found them. It's like the info on these topics are there. I just didnt know what to look for I guess. So my question is.. does this matter?

[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

You will find just as much information as you want to say Joseph Smith was anywhere from a polygamist to a horse thief. The amazing thing is that Joseph Smith was murdered and no one was convicted. And, early on (1833) about 800 members of the church were driven from their homes and the president of the United Sates cared more about his re-election than doing anything about the breach of the US Constitution.

If you really want to dig, curiously, dig for something that matters.

Find out about the denial of civil rights to the church in Missouri after their homes were burned because they had the gall to preach to a mixed audience of blacks and indians.

Finding alleged accounts of Joseph's wrong doing are a dime a dozen.

BenJosh

benjosh · Jan 9, 2006

curiouslyminty said:
I just came across...

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_258111338.html
so hes a crystal ball gazer and a treasure seeker repeatedly (four court times)... but thats not what struck me. go look up the records (they arent on that link but I dont have a scanner to scan them in) he doesn't even mention anything of the BoM in his trials..... so hes looking but hasnt found them yet? and he needs a crystal ball? or he just doesn't know of the books yet and its his hobby? either way... odd

How many convictions of wrong doing?

If you find enough arrests and charges and no convictions what will that tell you.

Was he innocent? or, was he a beady eyed deceiver who could charm rational people senseless with his strange voo doo like charisma?

BenJosh

Hoping for some thoughts from mormons

Member

Member

meh...

meh...

Member

Member

meh...

Member

Member

meh...

Well-Known Member

Member

meh...

Member

Member

Member

Member

meh...

Member

Member