Trying to make sense of Joseph Smith

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Many of the revelations in the D&C were given as the prophet wondered about scriptures he came across, and sought clarification from the Lord, such as:

1)Priesthood

2)Baptism

3)Abraham had many wives and concubines

4)D&C128 on baptisms for the dead

Those types of things I was referring to.

Thanks for expanding.

The Aaronic Priesthood was restored in 1829, during the “good years.” It is a preparatory priesthood. Interestingly, section 13 was not included in the D&C until 1876. I do believe the promise given in it.

Baptism goes along with that, but the scriptures say the outward ordinance isn’t as important as the inward (spiritual rebirth).

Abraham had many wives and concubines and it tore his family apart.

The Holy Spirit of Promise is what seals us all together. Not secret ceremonies.

My current view on baptism for the dead is quite heretical. Same with my view on the Melc. Priesthood.

So, I guess I can look at all those things and preserve my notion that JS was a prophet but he and the saints missed the mark in many ways. There were 7 good years followed by 7 not so great years. The saints failed to repent and obey God and were expelled. If we look at the scriptures-Nephites, children of Isreal-we see this pattern all the time.

[Anonymous]

This thread is cool.

I don’t have much to add … Things I’ve started to see is that the Church portrays JS as a ( kind of ) perfect figure AND somewhat neglects the fact that he was a pretty amazing thinker .. weather some ideas were from God or his imagination it is still pretty cool. That and they make him look really good looking now! Anyone see the new JS manual? … Talk about change. Does that mean the legend of JS will get more and moe blurry? It reminds me of the saying … The truth isnt always as pretty as a lie. I think that picture alone screams – The Church is going backwards with giving us the real Joseph, and it really is too bad-For those of us trying to make sense of THE REAL JS.

[Anonymous]

jmb, I always enjoy reading your posts…its too bad we don’t live in the same geographic area and could go to lunch or something.

jmb275 wrote:

For me, when Joseph Smith is viewed through the lens of a charismatic, philosopher king/cult leader, his actions make much more sense. At the end of the day, I don’t really need to prove (to myself) whether he was or was not a “true” prophet of God. He proved (to me) through his actions that he was an unreliable spiritual guide. One need only look to the myriad of prophecies and promises he made, which did not come to pass, which he promptly passed off as disobedience on the part of his followers, spurious revelations (some from man, others from God, others from Devil), or some other inconvenience. This does not mean that I can’t learn anything from his teachings. But for me, it casts a huge shadow on the authority claims, ordinances, and doctrines of the LDS church.

1. I would like to understand Plato’s philosopher king trap. I don’t remember if I studied that in my BYU philosphy classes or not.

2. Your comment is a good one (above) because much of the current LDS church doctrine is based on revelations from JS. I haven’t quite taken the step it sounds you have (JS was a good man but not a “true” prophet as taught by the LDS church and therefore the church today is a good thing but not the one and only true church of God, also LDS doctrine.). Your 1-14 points make logical sense. One way to explain it is your reasoning that JS was a good man and the path of events seem to follow what any other person would go through in trying to maintain his position. I’m sure this is how many non-LDS view him.

However, I still view Joseph as a fallible prophet, but a prophet that really had his visions, and he was motivated to act only in what he thought God was wanting him to do. He made mistakes, was chastised for some, but continued to seek God’s will. And if so, God was involved in Joseph’s life and had a hand in the establishment and growth of the church, despite weaknesses of men. Some things God didn’t care about, so if Joseph had ideas to print money or run for president or destroy the Nauvoo Expositor, that was how God lets things play out according to free agency, including the martyrdom. I don’t believe God got involved to punish the saints and make them leave Kirtland, but allowed others free agency to drive the saints and the church would move forward with a plan in Nauvoo, then French Quarters, then Utah.

I don’t mean to turn the debate into Joseph was or was not a prophet, I’m sure that is another thread. I guess I’m establishing that if I come from that line of thought, and am not ready to reject Joseph as a fallen prophet, how do I reconcile this polygamy/polandry thing … or does it necessitate the stance that the church cannot hold to current doctrines and claims if established on lies and falsehoods and all the current church leaders are ignorant or involved in a great conspiracy.

All of this then to me becomes important, because it reflects on the nature of God in my life. I don’t believe God makes a crisis for me (either because I sinned and deserve it nor because He thinks I’m ready for a new test). I think God allows things to happen to me, and I will be judged on my agency to live through it and make decisions, many of which I’m sure are wrong and I will feel the consequences of such. However, He is still aware of my life, and can have a hand on how to move forward for what is next based on what things I chose to do about it, or He may just let things play out for me.

So clearly, this is part of my current learning. How involved (if at all) is God in mortal lives and events? Historical church events, like polygamy, then have meaning to me in how they characterize God and His actions with His children, therefore…me.

Jmb, in your deconstruction of your beliefs then, do you view Joseph Smith like Mohammed … a spiritual philosopher and nothing more? And to bring it back to topic, do you believe Polygamy is “wrong” or it doesn’t matter? Can you view the issue of polygamy as separate from the issue of whether Joseph Smith saw God or not?

[Anonymous]

(Sorry…I don’t know how to keep this responses any more concise…I’ve tried editing them, but there are just some really good points you all are raising…exactly what I hoped to get from the forum…things to explore and look for meaning. Sorry, but thank you).

just me wrote:

*D&C 132 is in direct conflict to previous revelation. God commanded us to measure all revelation by what has previously been revealed. It fails this test.

What previous revelation? I’d like to look those up. If you refer to Jacob and D&C 42, see my comments below.

Quote:

*Joseph never publicly taught this “doctrine.” He is quoted as saying he felt he taught harder doctrine from the pulpit than in private. I also like to think he would have publicly taught it if it was God’s will. I am most bothered by the lying-have a hard time reconciling that.

I am totally with you on this. It seems to me the part that I have a hard time reconciling, and what keeps coming back to me as bothersome. On the other hand, was it “lying”? I am still figuring it out. What about when the Lord commands people to not tell all:

– Don’t show anyone the Gold Plates

– Christ healed and told the man to tell no one of the miracle (Mark 1:44)

– Nephi told not to write many things (1 Ne 1:16)

Quote:

*The D&C is FULL of warnings from God about adultery, whoring spirits, lust and coveting your neighbor’s wife. I have a hard time buying that He would suddenly find them righteous enough to do what he had to chastise them about!

See D&C 63:14,16; 3:4; 19:25; 38:24,25; 101:6

I too have considered this, yet fornication and adultery are only considered sin because it is outside the bonds of marriage. If you’re married to multiple partners, then it does not fit the definition of adultery. It is not having sex with many people that is the problem, it is having sex with people outside of a covenant of marriage that is the problem to me. Almost like the marriage covenant is the controlling factor. God doesn’t care if I have multiple partners as long as I’m not doing it outside marriage (like if my wife passed away and I married again, or divorced and remarried). The sin, IMO, is not controlling it.

Having said that, I can’t figure why polygamy would be needed, even if allowed.

Quote:

*D&C 42 is the law of the church. It calls for strict monogamy. Vs.22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.

Good one… I can’t get past this either, even if a polygamous marriage isn’t sin because it is within the bonds of marriage…why is there a need for more than one partner? I can’t figure that out, along with most of modern society.

Quote:

*Jacob 2:27…For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife…28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women…34…For ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done. 35…Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children.

Another good one… only thing I could read into this is that if all parties agree to it, it wouldn’t be demeaning to women who openly accept it. I think of the sin is in cheating and lying and sneaking around to a spouse. For couples that both agree to be “swingers”, there is no heartache or making women 2nd class. Not that I compare swinging to polygamy, just that it matters if the parties are consentual or not. I think this scripture is talking about men cheating on their wives, which may not apply to polgamy??? Not sure.

Quote:

We do not know what JS knew. We don’t know how God was using him. We can see that he had 7 good spiritual years and 7 years of spiritual famine. Surly that glosses over many of the mistakes he made during the course of his life, but it is apparent to me that even an outward “sinner” can receive revelation.

Absolutely sinners can receive revelation, otherwise, Christ would be the only one to receive revelation. I’m not sure if the 7 good years or bad years had anything to do with righteousness of people or not, of it that just is life… full of good and bad.

Great thoughts “just me” – there is more to your comments that I may need to go back and think through and ask for more clarification on, but the ones above are a start of my thoughts in response to yours.

Bottom line… I don’t think I’ve seen anything yet that clearly displays to me that because polygamy existed in the early church and JS practiced it, it proves to me JS was or was not a prophet, or that the Church fell into apostacy.

But it sure is a stickler to me still.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

(Sorry…I don’t know how to keep this responses any more concise…I’ve tried editing them, but there are just some really good points you all are raising…exactly what I hoped to get from the forum…things to explore and look for meaning. Sorry, but thank you).

I am totally with you on this. It seems to me the part that I have a hard time reconciling, and what keeps coming back to me as bothersome. On the other hand, was it “lying”? I am still figuring it out. What about when the Lord commands people to not tell all:

– Don’t show anyone the Gold Plates

– Christ healed and told the man to tell no one of the miracle (Mark 1:44)

– Nephi told not to write many things (1 Ne 1:16)

I think you did just fine keeping it organized.

I do think withholding information and lying are two different things. I think lying went on.

Example: Not telling my 5 year old exactly how babies are made is not lying. Telling her storks bring them to us is a lie.

Joseph is quoted as saying just weeks before his death (this isn’t exact, but close) “what a thing to be accused of having 5 wives when I can only find one.” That seems like a bold face lie if he did, in fact, have over 30 wives at the time.

Now, they used code words for polygamy. The church authorities seemed to think that if they called it something else it wasn’t lying to publicly denounce polygamy. It was called spiritual wifery, celestial marriage, the order or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

No matter how I go about it, if the prophet practiced polygamy (by any name) he was also lying.

You can look at this essay written for the RLDS church. It was written with the belief that JS never practiced polygamy. Of course, the proof is pretty overwhelming that he did. But they list all the times JS spoke out against it here: http://www.restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

I’ve read the whole thing and I found it very informative as to the history and publications of the time.

Here is a portion of a letter written by Hyrum:

Nauvoo, March 15,1844.

To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting:—Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here [at Nauvoo]: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

just me wrote:

*D&C 132 is in direct conflict to previous revelation. God commanded us to measure all revelation by what has previously been revealed. It fails this test.

What previous revelation? I’d like to look those up. If you refer to Jacob and D&C 42, see my comments below.

All the scriptures previously given. Plus the scriptures I pointed out.

I think the Article on Marriage is a very glaring contradiction. Although not a revelation, it was canonized.

Here you can read about the Article on Marriage: http://www.centerplace.org/library/study/dc/ldc-marr.htm

Here is the important part:

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 in the case of death, when either is as liberty to marry again.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Joseph is quoted as saying just weeks before his death (this isn’t exact, but close) “what a thing to be accused of having 5 wives when I can only find one.” That seems like a bold face lie if he did, in fact, have over 30 wives at the time.

These the things that bother me. I try to stay open minded:

1) How accurate are the reports of him having 33 wives?

2) How accurate are the quotes of what he said and what he meant?

There seems to be overwhelming evidence these were the facts, based on what I’ve come across so far. And if so, it surely looks like a prophet was covering up things and squirming to get out of trouble.

Of course, we thought Iraq had WMDs too… someone was wrong about that intelligence (did we make our best guess based on bad data or was it a deliberate lie??).

I haven’t decided yet to accept JS was lying or not. Does it matter to me personally today if he practiced polygamy or not? I think only if JS was lying and sinning and deliberately conspiring.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Quote:

Joseph is quoted as saying just weeks before his death (this isn’t exact, but close) “what a thing to be accused of having 5 wives when I can only find one.” That seems like a bold face lie if he did, in fact, have over 30 wives at the time.

These the things that bother me. I try to stay open minded:

1) How accurate are the reports of him having 33 wives?

2) How accurate are the quotes of what he said and what he meant?

There seems to be overwhelming evidence these were the facts, based on what I’ve come across so far. And if so, it surely looks like a prophet was covering up things and squirming to get out of trouble.

Of course, we thought Iraq had WMDs too… someone was wrong about that intelligence (did we make our best guess based on bad data or was it a deliberate lie??).

I haven’t decided yet to accept JS was lying or not. Does it matter to me personally today if he practiced polygamy or not? I think only if JS was lying and sinning and deliberately conspiring.

Very good questions. If JS had even more than one wife (Emma) it would have been a lie. Yes?

This quote is from a public sermon. I would then consider it fairly accurate. All his public sermons were recorded. Statements attributed to him are a whole ‘nother ball game. That is why I don’t trust the “angel with a sword” story.

But, I totally agree that we don’t have the whole story.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, Regardless of the source of the genesis of plural marriage, I think they knew darn well that the society in which they lived viewed it as abominable, that it was illegal and that the average membership (who weren’t engaged in it) would be persecuted for it – so they lied about it until they thought they were outside the legal jurisdiction of the US.

Do I think that’s honest? Of course not – absolutely not. Do I think it’s “right” or “proper”? That’s harder to answer, since I also have concealed things from others at times to protect them for various reasons. Do I think it was necessary, again regardless of “rightness” or “wrongness”? Yeah, probably.

By the way, just as an aside to consider, I’m not aware of any commandment to not lie ever to anyone in any situation that was in place in Joseph’s time or prior to it. We have the honesty question now in our temple recommend interviews (to which I always reply, “I try to be.”), but “bearing false witness” (in the context of the commandment) is very different than “lying”.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Another good one… only thing I could read into this is that if all parties agree to it, it wouldn’t be demeaning to women who openly accept it. I think of the sin is in cheating and lying and sneaking around to a spouse. For couples that both agree to be “swingers”, there is no heartache or making women 2nd class. Not that I compare swinging to polygamy, just that it matters if the parties are consentual or not. I think this scripture is talking about men cheating on their wives, which may not apply to polgamy??? Not sure.

The problem is, it still makes women “less than.” Example: One of BY wives divorced him. He claimed since they weren’t really married (by law) to begin with he had no responsibility to her.

The story of Abraham has Sarah GIVING Hagar to him. Hagar was a slave and had no choice.

All the stories I have read from women of polygamy have reeked of heartache. And detachment. When the new wife comes in the old are cast to the side, so to speak. How is that “cleaving” and “becoming one.”

I think the warning of “do not covet your neigbor’s wife” does apply to polygamy. But, I’ll admit it is because I do not see how you can take another man’s wife without first having a desire to do so. kwim?

Ray wrote:

By the way, just as an aside to consider, I’m not aware of any commandment to not lie ever to anyone in any situation that was in place in Joseph’s time or prior to it. We have the honesty question now in our temple recommend interviews (to which I always reply, “I try to be.”), but “bearing false witness” (in the context of the commandment) is very different than “lying”.

Yeah, I’ve gone the rounds on this one before. It is a whole nother topic. I will say that I don’t believe in “Lying for the Lord.” Lying is a form of self-preservation. I’m okay with that in some instances (saving lives). I dunno, the whole thing gets really sketchy and I do see where your coming from.

[Anonymous]

One of my pet analogies concerning Lying for the Lord/Honesty etc. is the story of Nephi and Laban.

Nephi put on Laban’s clothes to fool his servant.

Was that “honest”? Of course not.

Was it the right thing to do? Of course.

My 2 cents…mileage may vary.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I don’t believe in “lying for the Lord” either. I didn’t mean to imply that at all.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I don’t believe in “lying for the Lord” either. I didn’t mean to imply that at all.

No, I didn’t think that was what you were saying. Those were just my rambling thoughts in response to the whole lying issue.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

Very good questions. If JS had even more than one wife (Emma) it would have been a lie. Yes?

Yes. 33 or 1, if he had another wife and then told congregations I never have had more than one, that is a lie. Did he do that? Many of his remarks make it seem like it, but he is never quoted as saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

Ok, so without getting into “I said it is a crime to have more than one wife, but I really meant only if God doesn’t sanction it”, perhaps Ray brings another angle:

I could accept this:

1) God told JS to practice polygamy

2) JS knew society could not accept it, so he hid it from most people.

3) When directly confronted he lied because he didn’t know what else to do

4) WW then pleaded with God that it is just such a headache to keep dealing with this, can we revoke it?

5) God said Yes, revoke it.

6) It was once taught it was necessary for the highest degree of heaven, but now it isn’t anymore.

This could all be true. I don’t understand all the doctrine, but can still move forward until I do understand it because it is of no consequence to me anymore.

Does that make JS a fallen prophet if he lied? I don’t think it does. If he had to choose between lying or between disobeying a direct commandment from God, he chose the lesser of the two. If God accepts this, JS could still be his mouthpiece. If you had to choose between being 100% honest, and lying to Nazis that you were hiding Jews in your basement, what would be the right thing to do?

Does that mean polygamy is the law of heaven and we will be forced to live it one day? Not necessarily. All I know now is we aren’t allowed to live it, so I won’t live it unless an angel appears to me personally with a sword, then I’d only consider it.

Does that mean the church has fallen into apostacy and no longer is led by revelation because prophets lied about polygamy? Not necessarily, if WW went through the proper channels to wait until God revealed the Manifesto, then God is still able to move His work through the modern church with or without polygamy.

Is there a situation where Joseph Smith’s actions would affect the ongoing validity of the church? Yes, if he was lying about the First Vision and the restoration of the Priesthood, and God never appeared or sent angels to restore those things and those are not physical truths, then the church doctrine today is a lie and the LDS church is perpetuating a lie. I cannot say I believe the church is true if it was all in Joseph’s head because that is not the doctrine the church teaches. It teaches things really happened, even if we can’t explain how they happened.

The last question would be the important one. JS and polygamy does not seem critical to my salvation or my testimony of the church because I can believe in the church and believe in prophets whether JS lied about polygamy or didn’t.

Perhaps that is why the church doesn’t teach it today to new members. It doesn’t matter. It is not that we are being dishonest to new members, but there are things that do matter that we need to teach them (baptism, Holy Ghost, endowments, temple marraige–to 1 wife). I don’t need to teach my kids all the evil and grotesque things that have ever happened to abducted children, I only need to teach them not to talk to strangers.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

All the stories I have read from women of polygamy have reeked of heartache. And detachment. When the new wife comes in the old are cast to the side, so to speak. How is that “cleaving” and “becoming one.”

I don’t doubt you, and I haven’t read much about it to know, so you may be right that it involves heartache. OTOH, many consenting monogomous marriages involve lots of heartache too.

I’m not sure that I agree it is necessarily demeaning to women, unless it is a slave’s situation where she had not choice and was just used. I do admit, I am not comfortable it if is one-sided – men marry multiple women but women can only be sealed to 1 man. That to me makes it sound like there is a class difference, which I’m senstive as a man to not think that way or ever treat my wife that way.

Weren’t there situations where JS married women who were already married to another man? That means the woman had 2 husbands, JS and her first husband. Does that demean Joseph Smith for being the 2nd husband? No, but it is wacky!

In other situations, JS presented the proposal to those who would agree to it, and didn’t force them. One claimed she wouldn’t marry him unless an angel appeared to tell her, which she received a witness and then was consenting. Therefore, it goes back to being a formalized sealing or marriage and then is not adultery, just changes the definition of marriage (opens the door for Prop 8 comments, doesn’t it?! 😆 )

I think the difference to me is an affair is cheating on a wife who is not agreeable to it. Sarah agreed to give Abraham the slave.

I’m not really trying to defend polygamy, I don’t like the idea. Just trying to not be emotionally attached to the issue one way or another. I respect your opinions, though.

[Author]

Posts