You have not identified a "Biblical Standard" for prophet other than what you correctly identified that Jesus said. Know them by their fruits.

Go to the top of the page.

If you get lost in a thread. Go look at what the thread is about.

A critic posted a list of things that make a prophet from the Bible.

I went through each one and showed that Smith meets the Biblical standard of a “prophet.”

Jesus said that those who choose not to follow Him (does he also mean those who never knew of Him?) will face the wrath of God.

Smith said: Jesus is telling the truth, follow Jesus.

The “fruits” of Smith is his testimony of Jesus.

Critics will say that Smiths polygamy included relations of a Biblical nature. But the Bible includes polygamy.

Critics will say that Smith did not strictly follow Levitical Law for polygamy. Neither did Gods anointed in the Bible. Jacob did not. And Levitical Law does not apply after Christ. And the historical narrative for relations with already-married women is non-existant and weak.

 

Lots of wicked people say to follow Jesus.

Polygamy is not wicked in the Bible. Relations with women in polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

Smith testified of Jesus.

Jesus killed innocent women and children in the Bible. Wicked? The Bible condones and supports wickedness.

 

Warren Jeffs says to follow Jesus also.

A red herring.

If you want to start a thread about Jeffs, do so.

This is a thread about Smith.

 

I realize there is no condemnation for marrying 14 year old girls in the Bible. However, this does not mean that it is not wrong/evil.

It means the Bible is not a good moral and ethical guide.

It means Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

I am familiar with what it says in Romans and that verse about nailing our sins to the cross. However, Paul was very insistent that people not be involved in adultery. See Romans 7 for example. He spoke against the things which Smith promoted. As he said: "Is Christ the minister of sin? God forbid".

Your argument is that Smith violated Levitical Law.

He did every time he ate bacon.

He did every time he did not murder a bride on her wedding night who was not a virgin.

Jacob married sisters. An open violation of Levitical Law. Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

You are focusing on Smith violating Levitical Law and is therefore a sinner.

That is a ridiculous position.

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. Violating Levitical Law is what Gods anointed did in the Bible (Jacob). And Levitical Law does not apply to followers of Christ.

Smith was a follower of Christ.

 

This notion that one can go about violating standards of morality in the ten commandments because Jesus paid for our sins is not right at all.

That is some cognitive gymnastics right there.

Smith violate the ten commandments? Polygamy is not a violation in the Bible.\

Smith violated the ten commandments by violating a technicality in the Levitical Law? So did Gods anointed in the Bible.

Relations with women in polygamy is not a sin and does not violate the ten commandments. In the Bible.

 

 

What historians other than determined apologists like Hales make an issue of claiming that Smith did not have sex with wives of other men. Hales freely admits and claims that sexual relations took place with some if not all of the plural wives and that it happened without the knowledge of Emma Smith. The church also admits this. IN other words, they admit that he was an adulterer.

The woman has no choice on who her husband has relations with in the Bible.

Smith had Biblical relations with some of the women. Hard evidence is that he had relations with some number of the single women.

But that is not a sin in the Biblical sense.

 

 

As to God lying in the Bible, some of your examples like the one with Miciah and his sarcasm don’t really say that, but what if it does say this. It definitely says worse things about God than that. Don’t believe these anonymous slanders of our Father in heaven just because they are in the Bible.

The excuses people give for God lying and false prophecies in the Bible sound a lot like apologists making excuses for Smiths fales prophecies.

 

I recognize that if the woman doesn't approve, the man can go and marry another woman anyway. It says that in the Section 132 which is an abomination.

The Bible give zero input and zero choice to the woman.

 

Yes, I agree, that this could have happened in the Bible also. So what is the point? Am I to say Joseph Smith was a true prophet because he promoted the same evil thing which is found in some parts of the Bible?

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “Prophet.”

You can come to whatever conclusions you want.

But Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

It may be that I can't discount him based on the Bible, but I can sure do so based on what Jesus said and what James said and what it says in 1 John. I can also do it based on what it says in that abominable Section 132 and much more easily from the Nauvoo scriptures like Section 101 or for that matter Section 42.

Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.”

You claim that since Smith was sealed to women already married, (you leave out that he was also sealed to men), regardless of Biblical contact—that makes Smith a sinner based on Levitical Law.

That is a gymnastics level reach.

The historical narrative that Smith had Biblical contact with the already-married women is weak. Levitical Law does not apply to Christians and Jacob (Gods anointed) violated Levitical Law.

You need to let that one go.

 

So what is your definition of adultery which will not make Smith an adulterer?

Physical contact of a Biblical nature was not a sin in the Bible.

 

 What is your definition of bearing false witness which will not condemn Smith's public false slander of women?

You do not have a first hand source for this claim.

 

 

What is your definition of taking the Lord's name in vain which will allow all sorts of falsehoods and evil doctrines to be taught by Smith in Gods name without being guilty of violating the one commandment of which God says that he will not hold a person guiltless who does it?

Smith testified of Jesus and told people to follow Jesus.

 

Jesus had it right. You shall know them by their fruits.

Smiths fruits is his testimony to follow and worship Jesus.

 

I am focusing on what I think was the best of the things you had to say about determining prophetic validity, knowing them by their fruits.

Jesus said those who not follow Him face the wrath of God.

Smith said—Jesus is telling the truth. Follow Jesus.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

 This is indeed in the Bible, but it is not saying that to determine good or evil one must check the Bible. Jesus didn't even have the Bible and his listeners were mostly illiterate anyway.

Jesus told everyone who would listen to: follow Him.

Smith said the same thing.

 

Smith did NOT meet the Biblical standard, but this is not because he practiced polygamy. It is because he married the wives of other men. See Leviticus 18 for example to see this condemned.

Might as well have the smoking gun be: Smith ate bacon. Its prohibited in Leviticus.

Jacob married sisters. Leviticus contradicts other parts of the Bible.

Smith was a Christian, and as such was not subject to Levitical law, as “the law” ended at the crucifixion.

And the women who claim marital contact with Smith in polygamy were not married.

“Smith did not follow Levitical law perfectly!” The bible contradicts the Bible. Leviticus contradicts other parts. Smith did not murder brides on their wedding night, either.

 

Now you may say that it was ok because it wasn't a real marriage involving sex, but the evidence indicates that this is not the case. Lyons' wife told her daughter that Smith was her father but DNA indicates that her father was the woman's legal husband.

You are repeating a second hand story that is contradicted by solid historical evidence. Sure, and DNA evidence, too.

 

Thus she was having sex with two men within about a month.

That is not what the historical record indicates.

 

One does not have children without sex.

She birthed her husbands child. And you are repeating second hand information as if it is first hand information.

I linked to trusted historical sources earlier. You chose to ignore them.

 

 

Such intrusion into the marriage of another man was a "sin against God" in Gen. 39 and a capital offense in Leviticus.

Marrying children and slavery was not a capital offense.

Just making sure we are reading from the same Bible.

Christians do not utilize Levitical Law. Not being a virgin on her wedding night was also a capital offense in Leviticus. Its good the Bible contradicts the Bible and swaths are ignored.

Smiths relations of a Biblical nature? Within polygamy.

 

 

This included sex with a woman who was engaged to be married. I sent you a link to a very good discussion by Vogel.

I sent you a link to trusted historians who are clear that what you are claiming is settled historically—is not.

 

 

However, if you are determined to ignore all of this, then you are still faced with Brigham Young's adultery with Henry Jacobs' wife.

Asked and answered. You are bringing in Young as a red herring.

She made a choice, and went with Young.

And women in the Bible had no choice. Weird that bothers you.

 

You are still faced with the glaring contradiction between what Smith was doing with other men's wives and Section 101 which was the law of the church at that time.

Which is an evidence to historians that Smith did not engage in Biblical relations with Married women.

You know that is what historians turn to as a clue that Smiths sealings to married women was not of a Biblical nature.

You know that, right?

 

Marriage vows made earlier are sacred and fulfilled.

Polygamy and concubines were a form of marriage in the Bible.

 No true prophet from the Bible ever did this that I know of.

Jacob married sisters.

There is murder and abuse all throughout the Bible by Gods anointed.

Gods anointed did not give women a choice in the Bible.

God does not set a marriage age in the Bible.

 

 It was what a couple of false prophets did in Jeremiah 29. It was what Hophni and Phineas did. True prophets denounce these things.

Like slavery? Like marrying young women? Like murdering women and children? No. No, you are engaging in hyperbole.

Gods anointed did not denounce polygamy, did not denounce slavery, did not denounce marrying young women.

 

They are not involved in them. You say that the prophets did worse things like murder. Who? None of the ones who are certainly real individuals like the literary prophets. We know Micah existed, for example.

God condones the murder of women and children in the Bible.

The same (in creedal trinitarian thought) Jesus who claims those who do not follow Him face Gods wrath.

Prophets supported and condoned murder of innocents, slavery, and women being property.

“There is nothing worse in the Bible than Smith and polygamy.” Plenty of worse in the Bible.

 

How do we know? We have the book he wrote. But Elijah and Moses and Abraham are all literary figures who are written about by anonymous people long after their time. There is a lot of mythology in the Bible.

The Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

Smith also does NOT meet the Biblical standard because he went about slandering women calling them whores when they were not.

Ok, I showed you the source on that already. No one believes it actually happened.

 

Now… Show me a published, academically-accepted historian who accepts this as factual. The onus is on you here.

 

"Thou shalt not bear witness against thy neighbor" is what God says about this. There is no possible argument that this did not take place since the slanders were too widely reported, some even appearing in the Newspaper.

It likely did not happen historically.

Now… Link to an academically accepted historian who has published academically who is willing to say this actually happened.

 

 I think that often the slanders came from Smith's cronies but he made some himself.

The onus is on you to link to an article from a trusted source.

I showed you where it came from originally. You choose not to accept the truth.

 

Smith's polygamy is not what disqualifies him. As you keep saying, polygamy is biblical.

Polygamy is Biblical.

So is slavery and women being property. Things Jesus could have fixed but chose not to.

You claim things as fact when they are not.

 

It is his adultery and slander of others which does that.

God lies in the Bible. And the Bible contradicts the Bible. Jesus makes false prophecies in the Bible.

But… your sources are off here. And I have shown you.

 

It is his slander of women and overt lies which disqualify him.

God lies in the Bible. Jesus makes false prophecies and condemns those who do not follow Him.

Smith lied? Not in the case you cite here.

But lying would not be a disqualifier. Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 It is because his fruits were evil.

Jesus condemns those to the wrath of God for not following Him. Smiths fruits are clear: follow Christ.

 

They were evil by a Biblical standard.

No. Not actually.

There is some serious evil condoned by God in the Bible.

Its an honest curiosity that you don’t condemn Smith for marrying underage women—Because the Bible makes no mention of that.

Its Levitical law. Which Jacob does not follow in marrying sisters in the Bible. Romans 10:4 says, “Christ is the end of the law.” Colossians 2:13-14 says that God “forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.”

Levitical Law? Got nailed to the cross. Might as well condemn Smith for not murdering not-virgin wives on their wedding night or for eating bacon.

“Smith was sealed to not-married women!” Sure. And historians point to the historical narrative being non-existant to weak that it involved Biblical relations.

 They were evil by the standards of the Book of Mormon.

That’s not the standard of the thread. Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.

The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy. The Bible does not.

They were evil by the standards of the Doctrine and Covenants,

That is not the standard of the thread. 132 allows for polygamy as much so as the Bible.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

even including Section 132,

Smith gave a carve-out in 132 that aligns with the Bible in removing the choice of the women.

And they were evil according to the law in Illinois.

The standard of the thread is the Bible. Smith meets the -Biblical- (not Illinois) standard of “Prophet.”

 

Good and evil exist independent of that anthology of old myths found in the Bible.

The Bible is a horrific guide for ethics and morality.

The Bible was Smiths guide for ethics and morality.

 

I do not criticise or judge relationships between consenting adults which are not based on coercion. I agree with you that women were property in the Bible, but I also believe what Jesus said to know them by their fruits.

Would have been nice if Jesus had ended slavery or ended women being property in the Bible.

That would have been nice.

Instead, Jesus condemned those who do not follow Him.

Smiths fruits? Smith testified of Christ.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

I am still waiting for your definition of adultery which will not make Smith an adulterer. Neither have you given any well defined Biblical standard for a prophet other than the one Jesus gave to know them by their fruits.

I gave responses to someone claiming Smith was not a prophet by the Biblical standard—go re-read my OP.

I show that Smith -does- meet the Biblical standard.

And Smiths fruits? Smith testified of Christ.

 

You have correctly pointed out that polygamy was accepted in the Bible. I agree. Therefore, one can't reject Smith's prophetic claims just because he had more than one wife. However, this does not mean that one must accept his prophetic claims just because he practiced polygamy.

This is some cognitive gymnastics.

There are many false prophecies in the Bible. Correct prophecies are not  a requirement for being a prophet. Per the Bible.

Also, which real prophets can be shown to have practiced polygamy?

Abraham married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25:6). Jacob (Genesis 29:21-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9). Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13:8-12) and prosper in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2 Chronicles 13:16-18). Jehoiada, priest under king Joash had two wives (2 Chronicles 3:) and is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" (2 Chronicles 24:16).

 

Clearly Abraham and Jacob practiced polygamy.

Jacob violated Levitical law in marrying sisters. No consequence.

 

 

However, one can reject Smith based on other criteria, some of which were indeed Biblical, like various of the ten commandments.

Smith followed the 10 commandments. Polygamy was not against the rules in the Bible. Jacob violated Levitical law, and Levitical law does not apply to Christians.

 

Why is the standard the Bible?

I do not understand this question.

This was not the case for Jesus. Indeed, it didn’t even exist. I am using the standard you identified, and I might say, it is the only standard you identified. Are their fruits good or evil?

You brought up fruits, not me. But the fruits of Smith is testifying of Jesus Christ.

Why the Bible? The Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

Marrying young women? Not against Bible teachings.

Polygamy? Not against Bible teachings.

Not giving women a choice on marriage? Not against Bible teachings.

 

 

This law of Sarah was just made up by Smith based on the story of Abraham in which it was Sarah's idea, not Abraham's and certainly not God's. This of course is in direct contradiction to the claims in Section 132, but Smith also didn't seem to realize that Isaac was not polygamist.

Made up? You mean like much of the Bible…?

There is a reason you do not actually quotes scripture when you make claims about what it contains.

Smith left a carve-out in 132 for when a wife does not let her husband take polygamist wives allowing the husband to do it anyway.

Which is both funny and repulsive. And in-line with the Bible.

 

 

Now I didn't know any of this. I thought the wife would be consulted and that polygamous marriages were between consenting adults. I thought this because I wished to think it, not because I read Section 132 carefully.

If you read 132 carefully, you would see that if the wife says no, the husband can go ahead anyway.

If you read the Bible carefully, you would see that consulting the wife is not found in the Bible.

Does Smith meet the Biblical standard of Prophet by not consulting his wife? Yes.

What is our discussion? Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

Smith is unethical by todays standards? That is not the discussion.

Smith made poor decisions by todays standards? That is not the discussion.

The Bible gives women no choice in marriage, and Smith meets that standard.

 

 

You say God approved of the evil treatment of women.

God approved of the Bible?

That is where that sentiment comes from. Women having no choice in marriage in the Bible?

That is where that sentiment comes from.

Jesus condemning women (and men) to the wrath of God for -simply- not believing in Jesus?

That is where that sentiment comes from.

 

 It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.

Women are property in the Bible. The Bible is the “word of God.” Jesus does not change that in the New Testament.

He does not utter a peep about Slavery, either.

 

 

It is an inference you choose to draw.

The truth is the truth.

Women are condemned by the Biblical text in the Old Testament to be property of their fathers then their husbands after marriage.

That is the Biblical truth.

Jesus does not change their condition in the New Testament. And condemns women (and men) who lack faith in Him to “Gods judgement.”

Inference? The Bible text is wholesale abusive to women. In plain black and white.

If you give women a choice on who to marry? You are violating the Biblical text.

 

 

What is clear is that polygamy was a social custom. Some aspects of polygamy like levirate marriage were for the good of all.

Polygamy and concubines were a normal aspect of “Biblical marriage.”

Polygamy is not only -not- a sin in the Bible it is clearly practiced by Gods anointed and sanctioned by God.

 

There are also many conditions in the law of Moses intended to ensure that women were not treated as badly as they might be.

There were conditions on treating property? Sure. Similar conditions for slaves. A beaten and broken slave/wife won’t service you like a better treated one.

They are still property.

 

 

Also, there are prohibitions on certain marriages like those with close relations and between mothers and daughters. This was all ignored by the Mormons.

Technically, Smith having to convice young and old women to be sealed to him violated the Biblical text.

Technically. 132 saying to ask the wife at all violated the Biblical text.

The purest of pure evil is not that Smith was sealed to already-married women. The smoking gun of Biblical relations is with the other women not already-married. But that is not the worst evil of Latter Day Saint polygamy.

You will see people who understand the Bible say –with a straight face—that Smith violated a technicality in the Bible by marrying mothers and daughters.

They will say that with a straight face.

There is a Biblical problem with that because Jacob married sisters. But they will ignore that.

“Smith technically violated a technical rule on Polygamy in the Bible.” Chrisitans also ignore eating bacon. Because the old law was nailed to the cross and ended. But they have to ignore that. They have to ignore Jacob in the Bible doing it. To try to make their point.

What they do not condemn.

The purest of pure evil found in the Bible. And they will make no mention of this –case in point with this poster—

The Bible makes no mention of under age young women getting married.

Smith getting sealed to 14 year old young women and 16 year old young women? Not condemned in the Bible.

“Smith married sisters!” And also Christians eat bacon. And so did Jacob.

They can’t say (case in point with this poster) “Smith married young women!” Because no verse of scripture in the Bible condemns that.

The Bible has a technical rule for marrying sisters and mothers? The Bible contradicts itself. Jacob did it. And also Christians eat bacon. The “old law” ended at the crucifixion. Christians eat bacon and do not kill Brides on their wedding night who are not virgins.

 

Evil does not come from God.

Slavery and women having no choice on who they marry are both Biblical.

The Jesus that condemns those who do not follow Him in the New Testament. In the Old Testament –same Jesus, per the creedal trinity—killed innocent women and children in the name of God.

The verse you cited from Matt. 7 says to know them by their fruits.

You quote that verse.

Smiths fruits are: follow Jesus, worship Jesus. We are only saved through Christ.

 

Therefore, if what you say is true about what is in the Bible, that God approved of evil, then this just shows that that part of the Bible did not come from God and that whoever wrote it was not a legitimate prophet.

Interesting.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.” And the Bible is a horrific standcard.

 

 

 

The question is not whether it is in the Bible. It is whether it is good or evil.

If the standard is, “is it in the Bible” then the Bible is important.

But I agree ethics and morality should come before, “is it in the Bible?”

But this thread is—“is it in the Bible.” Does Smith meet the Biblical standard of “prophet?” Yes. He does.

But the Bible is a horrific standard.

 

 

 One does not need the Bible to tell the difference.

There are plenty of people who think the Bible is a history book that also teaches truth.

 

 

There are plenty of atheists who know good from evil and totally reject the Bible.

And there are believers who understand that the Bible can have dangerous teachings in its pages.

 

The criterion you cited is very good and gives the way to rule out someone based on evil fruits. One can do this with no reference to the Bible at all. See, for example Moroni 7 about the light of Christ.

You keep trying to bring up other references. This thread is about the Biblical standard.

But yes—the Book of Mormon teaches about Christ. Technically more than the Bible.

This is basically correct even if the BOM is not historical. Most people have some notion of good and evil, even those with no religion at all or a pagan religion. I know that most will protect children, for example. Neither will totally irreligious men kill women and children under usual circumstances.

The standard in this thread is the Bible.

Yes, there are many people are born with an ethical compass. Some people see Biblical polygamy as evil.

But its in there.

What standard does Smith meet? Highly moral and ethical by todays standards? Absolutely not.

Smith meets the standard of Biblical “prophet.”

That is the standard Smith meets.

 

Smith violated his marriage vows when he had secret sex with women other than his wife.

The Bible does not give women a say in who their husband has relations with in polygamy.

Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.”

And Smith gave himself a carve-out in 132. If the wife says “no.” The husband can do it anyway. The Bible gives women no choice, so technically Smith was not violating Biblical principles.

 

 

That is why I think he was an adulterer.

You are entitled to think what you want. Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible and women had no choice in the Bible.

Per the Bible, Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

Jacob in the Bible married sisters. The Bible contradicts the Bible. And the “old law” of technicalities ended at the crucifixion. Christians eat bacon now. That and historians cite the evidence of relations between Smith and single women as strong and evidence of relations with already-married women as non-existent and weak.

 

She did not even know about these marriages till 1843.

If she had  never known about them, Smith would have still met the Biblical standard.

Women have no say or choice in the Bible.

 

 

 As I said, one can practice polygamy without it being adulterous.

Polygamy in the Bible was no sin.

And the women Smith had relations with—were his polygamist wives.

 

 

In my family the wife of a great great grandfather got old and the husband was wealthy. In order to have more children, he took another wife with the full approval of his first wife. Thus the marriage vows were not violated because the first wife approved.

There are examples especially in the Utah period where the women agreed on other wives.

There are also examples in the same time period where a Missionary showed up from a foreign mission with a new wife.

 

 

I think of marriage vows as a covenant so if both parties agree to a modification of the covenant, it is their business and not mine.

That is not Biblical.

Women –per the Bible—have zero input and zero choice. They are property.

 

 

 

This is why I was able to stay fully active in the church and even defend polygamy to my children and friends. I would not call such a thing adulterous. It wouldn't be something I would want, but neither will I criticize based on such an arrangement which involves consenting adults and full disclosure and approval of all.

Polygamy in the Bible is evil.

Polygamy in the Latter Day Saints was evil.

There is just no way around it. Defend it? Cant do it.

 

My Stake president helped me write a letter to the historical department of the church and they confirmed what I had discovered in Van Waggoner's book "Mormon Polygamy". I didn't want to believe this so did not read it carefully. The church added to my knowledge of this by saying they had a child together. There was no divorce. I think they said this also, but I can't remember for sure. It really was I think about 25 years ago. Nevertheless, Brigham Young taught this.

Young is a red herring in a discussion on Smith. And I have no idea what you are referring to here?

You are saying Smith fathered a child in a polygamist relationship? That would meet the definition of Biblical polygamy. I don’t see what your problem is here.

You claim to quote verses that when read have different meanings than what you claim. You talk in circles, and add red herrings. Its hard to follow you. What did the Church specifically say about who specifically? No riddles or talking in circles.

Who did what to who?

 

 

So you see, when you constantly say polygamy was Biblical, I am in complete agreement. Neither do I believe it was necessarily adultery. So what is your definition of adultery?

Smiths polygamist relations with (some of) his polygamist wives would not meet any definition of sin in the Bible.

“Smith married moms and sisters!” So did Jacob in the Bible. Jacob married sisters. The Bible contradicts the Bible, the “old law” of technicalities ended with the crucifixtion. This is the same technicality as, “Smith ate bacon! Smith went to Church on Sunday, not Saturday!” The old law ended, and Jacob married sisters showing the Bible contradicts itself.

“Smith technically sinned when he had relations with some of the women he was sealed to!” No. No he did not. Relations with polygamist wives is not a sin.

“But critics can categorically prove he had relations with some of the women! That means he had relations with all of them!” That’s a point some critics make. The problem—even Vogel and Quinn admit that is not true. The historical narrative for Smiths relations with already-married women is non-existant and weak.

 

This may depend partly on how you regard marriage. If it is a civil contact, then there is no question that Smith was an adulterer.

Civil contract?

The standard is the Bible, man. Quit trying to move the goalposts.

 

 I am not sure if you have read this. It is the old Section 101 from the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants which was in the D&C till 1876.

If its not in the Bible, why quote it…?

The standard we are discussing here is the Bible. Why move the goalposts…? “Civil contract” “Doctrine and Covenants” That’s not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the Bible.

It was the official position of the church in Nauvoo while Smith was calling women whores

I already looked up your source on this. In Smiths speaches, there are journal entries, newspaper articles. Multiple people would write down his speeches—even his private speeches. There are multiple sources for solid claims about Smith.

The -one- source on the claim you make here is in a critical article in a critical source on Smith. One source. And it does not match what anyone else said.

That is not a good source. A source from a critic who was not present is not a good historical source.

You have problems accepting this, clearly.

You make claims that something is true without evidence for them being true. Why is that…?

 

and having secret sex behind his wife's back.

Nothing wrong about that—in the Bible.

It was also when he married wives of other men. Even if he did not have sex with them, he did not honor these covenants of marriage.

He was also sealed to already-married men in the Nauvoo time period. They believed everyone would be sealed in the whole human family. There is no sin in that.

 

According to the Church, Smith ignored this which was voted on in General conference and accepted as scripture by the body of the church, unlike Section 132.

The scriptures you list never make the claims you are trying to make.

I think 132 and the Bible can be navigated to evil.

But you cite scripture here and there that Smith violated. Which is moving the goalposts. The standard is the Bible. Does Smith meet the Biblical standard for “prophet.” The answer—yes.

 

 

It is called the law of Sarah. The wife needed to be given the opportunity to approve of a plural marriage.

You read the Bible, and thought that women had a say in who they marry?

Eh? Come on now.

132 gives permission to the man to be a polygamist if the wife refuses.

 

 

I had assumed that this was done. Under these circumstances, I was able to live with the idea of polygamy although I did not like it much.

Polygamy in the Bible –sanctioned by God—was abusive to women.

Polygamy in LDS Christianity—same. Abusive.

 

 

 I did indeed doubt that it all began with Smith. I did not grow up hearing this and when I heard it for the first time on my mission, I was not sure it was right. I went through several years of doubting that Smith even was involved after reading an interesting article on line called Joseph Smith's monogamy. I also read the book by the Prices "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy".

I suggest, “Rough Stone Rolling.” Or “Kingdom of Nauvoo” or “Joseph Smith for President” by McBride.

I think that the church is indeed telling the truth in their essay which makes Smith a liar and an adulterer.

Neither of those claims are in the Essay. You are engaging in hyperbole.

Adultery can happen with or without polygamy. I am not sure you have a well defined meaning for adultery. I do. It consists in violation of marriage vows. Smith was an adulterer because he did this. However, if Vogel is right, as I think he is, Smith was having sex with women married to other men and this is a capital offense in the Bible.

The evidence you have presented is pretty weak. Smith only had marital contact with women in polygamist marriage sealings.

 

I did not believe the statements in the church essay "plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" and told people at church that I did not believe Smith was a liar and an adulterer as clearly implied in that essay which admits that he had secret sexual relationships with multiple women in "time and eternity" marriages which could include sex.

Historians are clear that “eternity only” sealings occurred and they likely did not include physical relations. The Church does not imply the claims you are making. You have a vivid imagination and no issues with hyperbole.

Smith participated in both kinds they say.

That is correct. Smith likely did have formal relations with some of the women. But not all of the women.

There is detailed evidence from first-hand sources that Smith had physical relations with some of the women.

Sylvia? No. The evidence is non existant and weak.

 

They also admit that he kept it secret from his wife.

Women have no choice in the Bible who their husband marries. And 132 gives the husband permission if the wife says no.

 

They admit that he married wives of other men also.

Sealings to friends was not uncommon in Nauvoo.

This is strictly against what is in the Bible.

Giving women permission at all on who to marry is strictly against what is in the Bible.

Eating bacon is strictly against what is in the Bible.

There is weak to no evidence Smith had marital contact with the married women he was sealed to. He was also sealed to men.

 

 

They do not explicitly admit that he had sex with them.

You just claimed they did.

You must have a headache from all the cognitive gymnastics you do.

 

However, even if he didn't, surely you can see that this is not in conformance to the command in Section 42 which says to love your wife and cleave unto her and unto none else.

Polygamy is normative in the Bible. The Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

 

It was also directly contrary to the commandments of that time in the church which was in then Section 101. I understand that in the Old Testament law of Moses women were property, but the OP was about whether Smith could be considered a prophet.

 

The OP was about meeting the ---Biblical—standard of Prophet.

Polygamy was normative in the Bible.

 

 You pointed out the very good verse in Matt. 7 about knowing them by their fruits. Adultery is an evil fruit. Therefore, if we are to believe Jesus, then Smith was arguably not a true prophet.

Jesus could have given women rights and ended slavery. He chose not to.

Both my parents and the church taught me that adultery consists of violation of marriage vows. I think McConkie would agree. So what is your definition of adultery which will not imply Smith was an adulterer?

Polygamy was sanctioned by God in the Bible.

Your smoking gun is that Smith likely had relations with women in a polygamist relationship? That’s Biblical.

Incidentally, I actually believe in the part of the proclamation on the family which says that children have a right to be raised by parents who honor marriage vows with complete fidelity. I also believe in what Elder Packer said in 1981 when I was still young that it is a great sin to destroy a family.

The women were among Smiths fiercest defenders.

By not giving women on choice on who they marry, God destroyed families in the Bible.

 

I found out about the Jacobs family and I asked my Stake President nearly 30 years ago. He couldn’t seem to understand that my question was not about polygamy but about destruction of families.

I worry you are taking information that is not widely accepted as factual. And claiming it to be 100% factual. That is an error and a mistake.

Polygamy was bad for families. Sure.

But… polygamy is Biblical.

 

One can probably find good fruits in the lives of anyone.

Smiths friuits are his testimony that Christ lives and mankind is saved through Christ.

 

Jesus said to reject prophetic claimants because of evil fruits.

Jesus said simply not following Him will bring Gods wrath.

Jesus could have given women rights and said that slavery is bad. But He did not.

Polygamy is not evil—in the Bible.

 

Now, no one is perfect, but we should be able to expect a prophet to at least avoid bearing false witness and adultery.

Smith bore witness of Chris and polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

 

It is certain that the Moses described in the Bible did not exist.

The Bible is myth, conjecture, hyperbole and pseudepigrapha. It is a horrible moral and ethical guide.

It was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

 

 However, there is no reason to suppose that these were anything other than good men who did not do the things Smith did which included marriage and adultery with women married to other men. Jesus was also a good man who did not do the things the church claims about Smith.

This is difficult to read. You are trying to spin too much into your paragraphs.

Smith was sealed in polygamy with the women he had Biblical relations with. That is not a sin.

Jesus condemned those to the wrath of God who do not have faith in Him.

Smith was a polygamist, and likely had relations with some number of his plural wives. Relations within polygamy is not a sin.

 

As to Smith not having relations with women he had not been sealed to, I thought that for years. Also, that there would have been a divorce from the legal husband first. I thought this until the brouhaha about Sylvia Lyon came out. Hales thought the same. Vogel debunks this narrative very well in that which I sent you.

No  how many times you repeat it, it won’t become true. The historical proof for your claim is very weak. No how many times you repeat it, it won’t be true. You are quoting a second hand source. Not a first hand source. And Vogels evidence is that since Smith claimed that polygamy could be used to create children, then that is the smoking gun. The problem there is that Vogel also admits that not all of Smiths wives were in the Biblical sense.

 

 

Neither was I sure that Smith even practiced polygamy.

Smith taught and practiced polygamy.

 

 I tried to show that it started with Brigham Young.

LDS Christian polygamy started with Smith.

 

But I thought that if he did, then it would have been as you suggest. He would have gotten permission from Emma etc.

I never made that suggestion. You are engaging in hyperbole here.

 

NO. None of it which I thought, was true. Hales still tries to make the Sylvia incident into a case of successive polygamy, the new husband coming after the old one but the DNA evidence indicates that within about a month she was having sex with two different men.

Smith? You are engaging in hyperbole again.

There is no DNA connection to Smith. You are engaging in hyperbole.

 

He was indeed sealed to her, unlike Fanny Alger,

Multiple Nauvoo-era sources are clear that Smith was sealed to Alger.

Pg 325 of “Rough Stone Rolling” has Levi Hancock marrying Alger and Smith.

 

 but does such a ceremony sanitize the fact that she remained married to her husband or at least continued to have sex with him?

You are trying to establish as fact something historians do not conclude is factual.

All of the ancients had the same notion as I do about what it is. So where is your definition? Can you give a reasonable one which will not condemn Smith as an adulterer according to what the LDS church is willing to admit about him? I say frequently that those defending Smith are these polygamy deniers, not the LDS church.

Do you want me to admit your bad history is factual history? I can’t do that. The historical narrative you are referring to .

The historical narrative of Smith and Sylvia having Biblical relations are weak. This is not the slam-dunk you think it is.

And if it did (it likely didn’t) it would have been in a God-sanctioned polygamist relationship.

 

So, was the murder of those women and children good?

I have seen Bible believers say that they would side with God and help with the murders of innocents, if it were the will of God.

Good. Bad. Its Biblical. Smith meets the standard of Biblical “prophet.”

 

 Jesus said to reject prophetic claimants based on their fruits being evil. The question is not these other things but if this murder was good.

The fruits of Smith are his testimony that Jesus is real, and mankind is saved through Christ.

 

 

None of the prophets in the Bible ever had sex with a woman married to another man except for the false prophets I mentioned.

Plenty of prophets in the Bible did worser.

Murder of innocents—and maintained the status as Gods anointed.

You can do evil—and still be a prophet of God in the Bible.

Smith, per honest historians, likely did not have Biblical relations with any woman he was not in a polygamist relationship with.

 

 This is the correct answer, not unsupported claims about Smith's polygamy being ordained by God.

Polygamy is ordained by God in the Bible. Smith practiced it. And pointed to the Bible as ordaining it.

The Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

 

No. Smith does not meet the Biblical standard set by Jesus.

Smith testified of Jesus.

Jesus condemned those who did not follow Him. Jesus swore the wrath of God on those who do not follow Him. Smith told people: follow Jesus.

 

His fruits were evil.

Smiths fruits testify of Jesus.

 As I keep saying, if Smith had multiple wives this would not contradict the Bible even though it might have been wrong, but his sexual relations with women married to other men would. Also his marriage of mothers and daughters would violate Biblical laws.

Polygamy is Biblical.

Biblical leaders did worser than marry mothers and daughters. Murder. Murder of innocents.

Lack of consent of women in the Bible.

Jacob married sisters in the Bible. Gods chosen married family in the Bible.

Smith did also, just as righteous highly favored by God Jacob did? Interesting. Very interesting.

Seems like you are nitpicking on Smith, but not on Jacob in the Bible.

Smith meets the standard of “prophet” from the Bible.

 

This is hardly comparable to destroying a woman who refuses to violate God's commandments to not commit adultery.

That is not the claim in 132. You are being disingenuous. You are creating a false strawman.

Jesus condemns those who choose not to follow Him in the New Testament.

Polygamy is Biblical.

Nothing in 132 goes against Biblical teachings.

Its repulsive. But so is the Bible in not giving women a choice, and people being condemned by God for simply not having faith.

So where is the Biblical "Definition" of prophet

Go look at the top of the thread.

 

I think knowing them by their fruits is the only criterion available.

 

The fruits of Smith are his testimony that Jesus is real and we are saved through the redemption of Christ. The Book of Mormon makes this claim. The Doctrine and Covenants make this claim.

 

Where is your definition of adultery which will not include as adultery the things Smith did? All the standard definitions I gave you don't work.

Smith had relations with women he was sealed to in a polygamist relationship ordained by God. God ordains polygamy in the Bible.

How is it that calling women whores in public is not bearing false witness? So far, it looks a lot like Smith's fruits were evil.

Your source was weak that this even occurred historically. I provided the primary source. Not you. Me. I looked it up.

Turns out it is from a critical source. No one else said it occurred.

 

How is coercing young women to have sex in secret adultery based on a promise of eternal rewards contrary to God's commands not taking his name in vain if you use your position as prophet to achieve these nefarious ends?

Women have no choice in the Bible. So “coercion” is not wrong or bad—based on the Bible.

The Bible (repulsive) sets no age limit on marital age for young women. And condones polygamy as ok.

You are reaching here from a Biblical standard trying to condemn Smith—when in reality Smith meets the standard of a Biblical “prophet.”

 

Of course this depends on your definition of adultery. Where is it?

The Bible? Polygamy and marital contact in polygamy is fine in the Bible. And wives and women have no say in who they marry. Consent in marriage is not a thing in the Bible.

 

Here is another question. How can we follow Christ and practice adultery?

Clearly you can follow God in good standing and be highly favored of God. Jacob married Sisters in the Bible and is one of Gods chosen.

In the creedal trinitarian sense, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Jesus condoned polygamy.

Jesus condoned women having no consent in marriage. Jesus condoned no marital age for young women.

Can Smith be a polygamist, and engage in relations of a Biblical nature in a polygamist relationship with plural wives and be a follower of Christ? That is a good question. I would say—just like the Bible prophets who were polygamists who married sisters (Jacob—Leah, Rachel) Smith can be in good standing with God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Smith testified of Christ and told others—follow Christ. Clearly Smith followed Christ and practiced plural marriage.