| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/10/2011 1:39:34 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
. |
Posted on 01/02/2011 5:46:30 PM PST by Paragon Defender
Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22
Adapted from a presentation to the Seventy.
In the Doctrine and Covenants we read that Joseph Smith was “called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ” (D&C 20:2). The call of an Apostle is first to witness or testify of Jesus Christ. Old Testament prophets testified of His coming. The New Testament Apostles bore personal witness of Christ’s being and of the absolute reality of His Resurrection. This apostolic witness was the basis of their teaching. “Ye shall be witnesses unto me” (Acts 1:8) was Jesus’s instruction to the original Twelve. Peter testified on the day of Pentecost to the Jews who had gathered “out of every nation” (Acts 2:5) that “this Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses” (Acts 2:32). Similarly, Paul wrote to the Corinthians that Jesus “was seen of me also” (1 Corinthians 15:8). The sure witness of Christ’s being and the reality of His Resurrection is the first pillar of apostolic testimony.
The second pillar is centered on the Savior’s redemptive and saving power. Peter teaches that to the Lord “give all the Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).
Without these twin pillars of testimony concerning Christ, there could be no Apostle. Such testimonies are born of experience, divine command, and instruction. For example, Luke writes that Christ showed Himself to the Apostles “alive after his passion … being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).
How does the Prophet Joseph Smith fit into these apostolic requirements? The answer is “Perfectly.”
Joseph Smith’s apostolic instruction began in 1820. Pondering the questions of religion, he soon found that there was no way to reason or argue one’s opinion to an authoritative conclusion concerning the correctness of the various churches or their doctrines. Short of a divine manifestation, young Joseph could add only one more opinion to the already existing “war of words and tumult of opinions” (Joseph Smith—History 1:10). But Joseph’s questions on religion were answered by the personal and physical manifestation of God the Father and His divine and living Son, Jesus Christ—an experience referred to as the First Vision.
Like that of the original Apostles, Joseph’s experience with Deity was direct and personal. There was no need for the opinion of others or the deliberations of a council to define what he saw or what it came to mean to him. Joseph’s vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.
As apostolic as this manifestation of Christ’s being, existence, and Resurrection was to Joseph Smith, it was not the only thing Jesus wanted to teach him. The boy Joseph’s first lesson arose from the manifestation of Christ’s absolute, omnipotent, and divine power. Joseph learned firsthand at least one meaning of the redeeming and saving power of Christ when he prayed in the grove. As he began to pray, “Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction” (Joseph Smith—History 1:15). With every bit of energy Joseph had, he began to call upon God to deliver him from the grasp of this enemy.
“At the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction … , I saw a pillar of light. …
“It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound” (Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17).
Joseph Smith’s confrontation with the adversary is reminiscent of an experience Moses had, about which the Prophet would learn some few years later. Unlike the boy Joseph, however, Moses saw God’s greatness first and then was confronted with the power of the adversary before being delivered from his influence. (See Moses 1.)
The difference in the order of events is significant. Moses was already far into maturity and had much knowledge and influence prior to this event. By displaying His magnificent power to Moses before he faced the adversary, the Lord helped Moses put his life into perspective. After experiencing God’s glory, Moses said, “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed” (Moses 1:10). This incident enabled Moses to withstand the temptations of the adversary that followed.
Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was an inexperienced young man, who in his lifetime would repeatedly face adversarial power and the overwhelming problems it brings. By facing the adversary first, then being saved from his assault by the appearance of the Father and the Son, Joseph learned this indelible lesson: as great as the power of evil might be, it must always withdraw with the appearance of righteousness.
This lesson was critical in Joseph’s apostolic education. He needed this knowledge not only because of the personal trials that lay ahead of him but also because of the overwhelming opposition he would face in founding and directing the Church.
The boy Joseph went into the grove seeking wisdom, and wisdom he received. His apostolic instruction had begun. Among the great apostolic lessons of this First Vision were both the physical nature of the Savior and Heavenly Father and the initial and fundamental lessons relating to Their power—each a pillar of apostolic testimony.
Joseph Smith’s early apostolic instruction continued with his translation of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon gave Joseph access to “the fulness of the everlasting Gospel” (Joseph Smith—History 1:34), principles that were necessary to understand even prior to the organization of the Church. The Prophet was introduced to numerous “plain and most precious” (1 Nephi 13:26) prophetic and apostolic testimonies regarding the Savior, all of which served as models for him.
Indeed, the Book of Mormon prophets employ over 100 titles in their teachings of Christ, each of which helped Joseph understand the Savior’s divine role.1 By virtue of these teachings, Joseph Smith became intimately acquainted with ancient prophets, giving him insight into the divine purpose of his responsibilities.
The Book of Mormon illuminates the universality of Christ’s Atonement. The Savior’s holy sacrifice is not confined to the borders of the Holy Land of His day or even restricted to the apostolic world of the original Twelve. The Atonement encompasses all of God’s creations—past, present, and future. What an impression Jacob’s teaching of the “infinite atonement” (2 Nephi 9:7) must have made on the mind of young Joseph, especially in contrast to Christian teachings at the time.
The Book of Mormon also introduces the universality of the Resurrection and other doctrines relating to it. Discourses on this doctrine by Lehi, Jacob, King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, Amulek, Samuel the Lamanite, and Moroni are all rich sources of instruction.
During the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Prophet received additional valuable personal instruction concerning the redemptive and saving power of Christ. In 1828 Martin Harris persuaded Joseph to lend him the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript. When Martin Harris lost those pages, the Prophet felt an enormous despair.2 His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recorded that Joseph exclaimed: “Oh, my God! … All is lost! all is lost! What shall I do? I have sinned—it is I who tempted the wrath of God. … How shall I appear before the Lord? Of what rebuke am I not worthy from the angel of the Most High?”3
For well over a month the Lord left Joseph in this terrible condition of remorse.4 Then came relief and the apostolic lesson. The Lord told Joseph:
“The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught. …
“For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him” (D&C 3:1, 4).
These words carefully describe what Joseph Smith had been experiencing. He had learned the exacting nature of the apostolic call and to whom the Apostle, at all cost, owes his loyalty. “Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words,” Joseph was told, “yet you should have been faithful” (D&C 3:7–8). Joseph Smith had lost access to the plates for a season and had been taught an invaluable lesson. Subsequently, the plates were returned, and his position as translator restored.
How critical were the lessons provided by the translation of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith grew in his apostolic calling! The Book of Mormon is the “keystone of our religion”5 because it contains so many prophetic testimonies of Christ and stands as a tangible witness of the Restoration.
After finishing the translation of the Book of Mormon in 1829 and organizing the Church in 1830, Joseph Smith had the opportunity to receive continuing apostolic education through the process of translating other scripture. This included three years of translating the Bible and, beginning in 1835, translating the book of Abraham. Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible expanded his understanding of the role of Old Testament prophets and New Testament Apostles. It also resulted in additional revelation, namely the book of Moses.
The book of Moses provided the Prophet with important knowledge about the Savior’s ministry, including His role in the Creation. “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying: … I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things” (Moses 2:1). Further, He said, “And worlds without number have I created; … and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten” (Moses 1:33).
The book of Moses clarified Christ’s relationship to the Father in the premortal existence and reinforced the Prophet’s understanding of the ascendant power of righteousness. One of the most beautiful of all the apostolic lessons that came to Joseph Smith in this revelation was the confirmation of God’s love. It was so different from the harsh, unforgiving, and judgmental personage so many believed God to be; the book of Moses reveals a God of infinite compassion. Enoch saw that the “God of heaven … wept” (Moses 7:28) over those who would not receive Him. Wishing to know how it was possible, Enoch was given an answer that has a familiar biblical feel to it: “I [have] given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father. … Wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?” (Moses 7:33, 37; see also Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37–39).
Through the translation of the book of Moses, the Prophet also became more acquainted with the redeeming and saving power of the Savior. As the Lord said, this earth was created “by the word of my power” (Moses 1:32) for the purpose of bringing “to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). Many long years before the Savior taught Thomas and the Twelve that “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), He revealed to Moses that “this is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time” (Moses 6:62).
The First Vision in the grove, the translation of the Book of Mormon, the revision of the Bible, the revelation of the book of Moses, and the translation of the book of Abraham laid the basic foundation of the Church, largely through the rapidly expanding knowledge and testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith relating to Jesus Christ.
Revelations given to him and compiled in the Doctrine and Covenants contain a wealth of knowledge concerning the Savior. One could research the numerous topics and cross-references of the Topical Guide and Guide to the Scriptures referring to Jesus Christ and still not understand the breadth of information on the Savior that the Prophet Joseph Smith brought to the world. I am grateful to know that Jesus was “in the beginning with the Father” (D&C 93:21). I am grateful to know that He “suffered these things for [me], that [I] might not suffer if [I] would repent” (D&C 19:16).
I am grateful for yet one other thing about the Savior’s ministry that stirs my soul deeply. From studying the promises of Malachi, Moroni’s initial visit with Joseph, the Savior’s words to the Nephites, and the visit of Elijah in the Kirtland Temple, I learn that God loves His children and has provided a way for each to return to Him. I know of no doctrine more just, no teaching that gives more hope than that of redemption of the dead. I am so grateful for the revelations that teach me that the Savior’s Atonement reaches to those who have lived, loved, served, and hoped for a better day yet never heard of Jesus or had the opportunity to embrace His gospel. This knowledge alone would be sufficient to convert me to the gospel if I knew nothing else at all. Here, at least for me, is the ultimate testimony of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice.
What, then, can be said of the incomparable saving power of Christ? That which Joseph Smith learned in the Sacred Grove about the power of righteousness overcoming evil foreshadows the final scene. So reveals the Lord:
“I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—
“Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment” (D&C 19:2–3).
Our own testimonies of the Savior are framed by the testimony and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Is it any wonder then that the Prophet taught that “the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”6
Joseph Smith’s apostolic testimony of the divine reality and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as his knowledge of the redemptive and saving power of the Savior, can best be seen by the Prophet’s own beautiful, powerful, and succinct witness:
“And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
“That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22–24).
How grateful I am for the apostolic call of Joseph Smith.
4. The 116 pages were lost in June 1828. In July Joseph Smith received what is now section 3 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In September the plates were returned to the Prophet. See the historical introductions to D&C 3; 10.
You don't claim to be a preacher or anything like that I hope? Cuz normally one needs ordination papers that weren't obtained upon graduation from some finishing school on a pirate ship. lol. I can feel the love. lol.
I think the Michelle Obama Fashionista threads are the most vicious. For bitter, I would go with the "Birther" threads.
Which just goes to show that viciousness and bitterness are not necessarily uncalled for, LOL!
Enablers aren’t deserving of this “love” you so persistently demand. They are deserving of scorn and rebuke.
That was vicious and bitter.
Ok that explains it then. Cuz one time I think I heard MHGinTN preach and when he gave the altar call everyone fell to their knees but not because they were touched but rather because they were all in pain from listening to him, or her, or it. Whatever. lol. Maybe I just dreamt that.
Out of curiosity do you think Jesus Christ represented himself as:
Rude
Condesending
Arrogant
and
Self Righteous???
I don’t see him at all like that in scripture, do you?
Incidentally, I'm one of the posters who invited a Mormon to leave FR and stay away ... after it freepmailed a cussing to a lady I know who posts on the opposition to LDS threads. It is interesting that a poster would glory in their ignorance and play at mediator for everyone else, as II tries to do.
OK, that was merely bitter.
I've learned from the best. :-)
Wait, a professing Mormon cussed out someone in Freepmail? Isn’t that against their commandments?
Well then may I ask you, how *You* see yourself on this thread?
As someone who understand’s shows compassion and love to your Christian brother and sister’s???
IMHO you seem always like you are in *Attack Mode* or you are determined to prove yourself right....
I’m sure you did :-)
I think you got that wrong and turned around. I'm the one who complained that Reaganaut dropped f bombs in my freepmail. But the facts don't seem to matter to you yahoos. If a moment of honesty should happen to strike her, she'll tell ya.
However, I again aver that the LDS doctrine that God the Father had a Father who had a Father and so on cannot be dismissed with a hand wave.
Nor can His Name I AM be dismissed with a hand wave.
Legerdemain is a magician’s trick – getting the audience to watch one hand while the other is doing something else. Like secrets of any kind, it has no place among preachers.
Clarity and simplicity are crucial in declaring Who Christ IS.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]. - 2 Cor 11:3-4
In post 784 you testified that “We have one God.” but based on the rest of that post, the sentence should be finished as follows ”We LDS have one God, the heavenly Father, who is relevant to us; the Heavenly Father’s Father, Grandfather, etc. are irrelevant.”
And in post 1688 you said ” I AM is definitely one of God's names.” but based on the previous post 784 (and others such as MHGinTN’s post 1691) that sentence should be finished as follows ”We LDS recognize that I AM is definitely one of God’s names in the same respect that I am and you are and he is - which is not in the Judeo/Christian meaning of YHwH (He IS) that there was no one, no time and no thing before Him (Alpha) and that there will be no one, no time and no thing after Him (Omega.)”
Again I aver that the issue of “Who God IS” cannot be dismissed with a hand wave.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:7-8
Lurkers will note - common deflection technique. common sense reading of the passages is all that is required and the doctrine contained in them becomes apparent - contrary to mormon apologists who want to force a contrary interpretation on them.
2 Peter 1:20 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Again, lurkers will note a verse cherry picked from the bible. What Du won't tell you about this passage is that mormonism claims to be the exclusive authority to interpret scripture. Again, Du is contexturally challenged in this respect. Verse 19 speaks of the fact that we have received the “sure word of prophecy.” This establishes the idea that this passage is referring to the “prophetic” portions of “Scripture” as they are contained in the Old Testament (i.e, the writings of Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc). It is to these prophetic books that Peter is referring when he addressed the "prophecy of the scripture" at verse 20.
Verse 21 explains how this “word of prophecy” “…came not…by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” This verse explains what Peter meant when he said that “no prophecy of Scripture” is of any “private interpretation.” He is speaking about the origin of the “prophecy” —explaining how it came into being by the Holy Ghost and not by any one individual’s “private interpretation” of what he thought the “prophecy” should say.
It is evident by the context of this passage that 2 Peter 1:20 is not condemning the diligent, careful analysis of God’s Word which leads to accurate, exegetical interpretation of Scripture, but is rather speaking of the origin of the prophetic passages as not being of any “private interpretation.”
But then, what else would you expect from a mormon 'seminary' graduate.
Jesus never said that the first marriage was in force.
LOL, that is one of the lamest claims I've seen from you lately Du - and you've made a lot of lame claims.
Mat 19:9 KJV - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. First look at the surrounding context. The 'divorce' itself isn't adultery - it is the illegitmate marriage (and sex with) another that constitutes adultery.
Adultery to have sex if neither person has been married? (Don't quibble about fornication) if all sex outside of marriage is adultery your analogy falls apart right there.
Oh now I spoke too soon - this is the lamest statment (wow - twofer). In this specific passage, the greek word for adultery is "moichaō" which by DEFINITION is "to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife". Therefore, in the eyes of God that 'divorce' is invalid and God still sees them as man and wife - so if either under the conditions of 'divorce' it is adultery.
Now you want to quibble about the term "fornication" adultery is used with fornication - as with a prostitute.
You go on for a while about breaking marriage bonds, which I am not saying Polygamy is doing, in fact it does not.
Wrong again Du. As Mt 19 clearly states, and go back an re-read the greek definition of adultery at that verse - If there is a pre-existing marriage, any additional marriage. Instead of my definition of adultery failing - it is YOUR definition of polygamy that fails. Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.
And from the preceeding verse (Mt 19:6) God does not accept divorce as valid, thus any man who divorces his wife (or vice versa) is not really divorced, and if he/she marries someone else, he commits adultery.
What is clear is not only did smith violate this clear command from Jesus - he also screwed up existing marriages by other women to their current husbands.
I don't CARE about polygamy, I don't intend to have more than one wife. You do care, because if polygamy is biblical, you just lost a Cause célèbre for condemning Joseph Smith.
If you don't care - you sure waste a lot of time defending it. Do you view D&C 132 that poorly Du? Would you join your other brethern is polygamy was legalized like homosexuality? But smith not only violated biblical principles and laws, he violated civil law (obeying the law was cannonized mormon doctrine) as well as violating church doctrine (infact people were excom'd for polygamy/adultery while smith was shacking up with his wives).
Jesus never mentions polygamy, not once. He condemns divorce and anyone who remarries is committing polygamy.
You should have stopped while you were ahead Du (three lame statement). What did Jesus say - Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: He doesn't commit 'polygamy' du, Jesus said he commits ADULTERY. Jesus couldn't put the cookies down any lower for you Du. Perhaps you should take the time to READ the passage before uttering such nonsense
I asked if the Indians . . .
Is just a red herring DU. The degree to which US law recognized any degree of polygamy among the indians during that time frame via treatys is not the issue. Smith was not a lamanite now was he.
As for the Nauvoo expositor, polygamy was not the only thing they were saying, today such a rag would be sued out of existence almost as fast as the city council ordered it destroyed in that day.
Right, not only did it expose smith's practice of polygamy, it exposed his polytheistic doctrines, as well as challenging him on his other doctrines. Not too unlike what we 'antis' are doing here - and not unlike the great whinning being made by mormons to that same effect. And an illegal destruction that was. BTW, a lot of "rags" are still in print today - that pesky thing to TBMs called the 1st amendment and all.
The Nauvoo expositor is a red herring anyway, it has no bearing on the Biblical legitimacy of Polygamy, and actually, Neither does Illinois law.
LOL, still digging in deeper DU. If polygamy was as legal in Nauvoo as you claim - the charge of polygamy in the expositor should not have generated the hate it did now would it. In fact it would not have even been an issue worth addressing in the first place.
But Illinois law - well du, ignore the laws at your own risk. It becomes apparent that following AoF #12 is not a fundamental belief of mormonism then, is it. Mormons can violate any law they want to - after all, that is 'civil law'.
But smith still violated God's Law did he not? The 1835 edition of the "Doctrine and Covenants," which was the official scriptures at the time, specifically prohibited the practice of polygamy: Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)-
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again."
Bigamy, simply put is having more than one legally married spouse.
My goodness Du, more lame and stupid statements. First, bigamy is a subset of polygamy, which under Illinois law was being 'married' to more than one man or woman. If you cannot be married LEGALLY to more than one spouse - then any other spouse is ILLEGAL (no wonder lds church is having trouble with illegal aliens).
I believe it was you who argued on another thread that they were not legal marriages and went on to show that no marriage license was procures so the marriages were not recognized outside of Nauvoo.
That was not my arguement - do your research better.
I'm going to quote to you from a site that will surprise you
Sorry, no surprise here DU - except for you poor reading comprehension and understanding of the citation. You forgot to also bold - provided they did not conflict with specific powers granted by the federal and state constitutions. What is even more lame is you make the next statement -
There was no constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy. There still is no constitutional amendment that prohibits polygamy.
Dear DU, are you that constitutionally challenged? You arguement is invalid on so many levels it is pitiful.
1. There was no ordinance passed by the Nauvoo council LEGALIZING polygamy on the books. Since there was no such ordinance, by law (and your interpretation of the charter) state laws covering marriage would be in effect - laws which outlawed having more than one spouse.
2. By claiming there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy you also fail to note that all federal and state laws are bound by their respective constitution. Hence, we have a court system to challenge the legality of those laws and render a constitution decision on them. Laws against polygamy are still in effect today in spite of legal challenges to them - thus they meet the constitutional challenge and polygamy finds no shelter in the constitution.
Nauvoo had the right to have polygamous marriages, and even bigamous ones if it wanted .
Again, show me the actual ordinances passed that legalized polygamy/bigamy in Nauvoo. In absence of such ordiances, they were under the laws of the state which DID outlaw those marriages.
. . . won't change the FACT that Joseph smith did not break any laws against having more than one wife.
Sad, sad Du, once again, Illinois made such marriages illegal - and that is a FACT you can bank on. He also broke the law and doctrine of his own church. and never forget, smith had the services of his own abortionist available to him at all times.
All your bleating and interpreting won't change the FACT that Jesus never condemned polygamy, only Divorce.
And Jesus in correctly condemning divorce made it clear that God only recognizes one man being married to one woman (and vice versa) and that being married to more than one is adultery.
all your simpering and whimpering won't change the FACT that Polygamy was approved of by God in the Bible, and the additional FACT that God does not change, therefore if he approved of it often in the Bible, it's not going to be a sin now.
Jesus corrected the religious caste in Mt 19. God never APPROVED of polygamy, but he tolerated it because of the hardness of mens hearts, for Jesus correctly spoke that it was one man and one woman that were to be joined as one. God only made one man and one woman for the garden (not a harem).
However, being a 'sin' now - ROTFLAICGU - this coming from mormonism that does EVERYTHING in its power to distance itself from its brethern in the FLDS - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh that is choice Du. Apparently YOUR church sees polygamy as a sin TODAY, hahahahaha. Oh my, my sides are hurting now from laughing.
The facts are against you, you keep quoting things that are out of time for attacking Joseph, the Bible does not agree with your interpretation, and you keep inserting things and then accusing me of doing so.
Lurkers will note, a vain and lame attempt to recover some semblence of dignity for an abyssmyally poor presentation. With this in mind, remember smith married wives that were at the same time married to another man. And since GOD never changes as Du bleats loudly and jumping up and down here, what does GOD say about this -
Ex. 20: 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Deut. 5: 21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Again, smith violated his own doctrines marrying others wives -
Mosiah 13: 24 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.
D&C 19:24-25 I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of the Father, and I do his will. And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife;
Attack smith - LOL, smith displayed his fruits by flagrantly violating the commandments of an UNCHANGING GOD. It is no wonder one of his favorite phrases was 'fruit of his loins'? Consider also the following
- Married numerous women - at least 33 women, perhaps as many as 60.
- Married girls as young as 14.
- Married women that were already married to other men.
- Married his own foster children.
- Broke the law by practicing polygamy and encouraged others to do the same.
- Threatened young girls to marry him and promised exaltation to parents of young girls that gave their permission to Joseph to marry their daughters.
- Lied continually in public and to fellow church members about practicing polygamy.
- Had other church members lie about his polygamy.
- Married women without telling his wife Emma first and even having pretend second marriages later to cover for his deceptions.
- Destroyed a printing press that printed newspapers exposing his polygamy - ultimately landing Joseph in jail leading to his murder.
Lurkers - are these the actions of a prophet of God? Some may say he was only human - but note - smith claimed GOD told him to do it!! It is the mark of a false prophet, not a true one.
Du would like you to take the word of just one man - smith. No other prophet really claimed that God visited them or sent angels to confirm the practice of plural marriage. If smith was mistaken, deluded, deceived by Satan in the form of an angel or lying to cover up his affair, then the entire practice of polygamy was a terrible, unnecessary hardship on untold thousands of people.
Is there is anyone out there reading this that can honestly say that they get a good, warm, spiritual feeling that God commanded smith to marry other men's wives and 14 year-old girls and to lie about it all his life? Did this come from God or man - perhaps this might provide insight -
"Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor to Brigham Young, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp 129-130.
Ask Reaganaut she'll tell ya. Oh wait a minute. I think she's a Christian. By the way, I still have it if anyone needs a copy/paste. :-)
I wonder why you seem so self righteous? Is it possible that it is because you are a sinner, just like the rest of us. You stand in condemnation to a host of posters on this thread. What do you think gives you that right?
PS Tara, I am actually a very cheerful smartass. I may not always remember to put in the little LOLs and smiley faces, but I'm usually quite calm and having a good time around here. But make no mistake, I am always in attack mode against false gospel. I told you, I stand on a rock.
Hardly - except through the gross twisting of the bible and definitions of words.
Actually, it's not. you tell people to rely on your analysis, and then you spend lots of time at it. praying in faith is not something I have ever seen you seriously promote.
Alas - continue to misrepresent me and my statements. If one is going to 'TRY' the spirits they should follow the whole intent behind the greek word and to remember that the bible also teaches that the heart is deceitful and not to be trusted. Most mormons would not be mormons today if they had taken tums before praying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.