Brigham Young: Man of the Spirit

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/08/brigham-young-man-of-the-spirit?lang=eng

Brigham Young:

Man of the Spirit

By D. Michael Quinn

One of the recurring themes in non-Mormon biographies of President Brigham Young is the idea that he was not a very “spiritual” man. Such interpretations, however, not only misrepresent his character, they also totally disregard the evidence, both published and unpublished, that refutes such a stereotype. For example, throughout his life Brigham Young had personal experience with many of the divine gifts of the Spirit.

One of the spiritual gifts that President Young experienced at various times was speaking in tongues. On the day when he first met the Prophet Joseph in November 1832, the new convert surprised the group he was with by speaking in tongues. Joseph Smith proclaimed that Brother Brigham spoke the language of Adam on that occasion. Like all gifts, however, speaking in tongues is not intended for too frequent display, and Elder Young did not often manifest this gift during his many years of proselyting among the peoples of America and Europe. Nevertheless, there were times when the Spirit moved him to do so. Utah pioneer Jesse W. Fox also bore testimony that on one occasion President Young was blessed to converse with the Indians of Utah in their native language.

The ancient prophet Joel prophesied that in the latter days “your old men shall dream dreams.” (Joel 2:28.) This is one of the scriptures that the Angel Moroni repeated four times to Joseph Smith in 1823, and it is a prophecy that found fulfillment in the life of Brigham Young. There are recorded dozens of dreams of Brigham Young that he felt had given him personal comfort, as well as insight and revelation for the conduct of his ministry. While on missions away from home, he had dreams concerning his family’s welfare that proved to be completely accurate upon his return. As the Saints prepared to leave Nauvoo for the western wilderness of America, Brigham Young related a dream in which he had seen “in the west many beautiful hills. & barren & valley skirted with timber.” President Young’s dream of the Salt Lake Valley was so detailed that Elder George A. Smith of the Council of the Twelve recognized Ensign Peak from the description that had been given.

President Young not only dreamed dreams, he was also a visionary man. At conference on 6 April 1862 he said: “I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven.” Before the Church was expelled from Missouri in 1838, Elder Young had a vision of the scattering of the Saints, and their eventual return to establish the New Jerusalem. One of the most solemn experiences of his life occurred on 17 February 1847 when, as he related it to Willard Richards two weeks later: “I actually went into Eternity last Wednesday week, & came back again.” In this vision he met with Joseph Smith and was shown the premortal existence of the spirit children of God. Five months later, while standing in the Salt Lake Valley of Utah, President Young saw in vision the six-spired Salt Lake Temple, and he later said: “I have never looked upon that ground, but the vision of it was there.” He also publicly testified that by vision he had learned how to govern the Saints, had seen the destructions upon the wicked, and had been shown “the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity.”

In one of the modern revelations, the Lord said that although not all have the same spiritual gifts, some people are blessed by God to have “faith to heal,” and some are given the gift of “the working of miracles.” (See D&C 46:11, 20–21.) On 26 November 1839, while en route to England to fulfill a mission, a violent storm buffeted the ship on which Brother Young traveled:

“I went upon deck and I felt impres in spirit to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus for a forgiveness of all my sins. And then I set to command the winds to sees [cease] and let ous [us] goe safe on our Jorney. The winds abated and Glory & ouner [honor] & prase be to that God that rules all things.”

In a marvelous manifestation of the gift of healing, Brigham Young administered to a woman in southern Utah who had been paralyzed by a stroke, and “she was instantly healed and walked home unassisted.” President Young did not often speak publicly about his special experiences of the spirit, but on 12 October 1856 his first counselor Heber C. Kimball told the Saints that President Young had received ministrations of Jesus Christ, Michael, Elijah, Moses, and the ancient apostles. As he neared the end of his own mortal ministry, President Young told the Saints on 18 May 1873: “I have had many revelations, I have seen and heard for myself.”

In his role as apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ it was Brigham Young’s right to receive revelation for the benefit of the Saints.

While on a mission in England in 1840, Elder Young received a revelation about the law of celestial marriage, which he mentioned to no one until he received confirmation from the Prophet upon his return to Nauvoo that the revelation was of God.

After the death of Joseph Smith, there was confusion among some people as to what the Saints should do, but by revelation Brigham Young as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles knew what to do. On 24 August 1844, the Quorum of the Twelve was presented with “two revelations that President Young take such measures as may seem best to him to gather men & means to this place to complete the Temple.” As the anti-Mormon mobs grew more threatening to the continued presence of the Saints in Nauvoo, Brigham Young sought guidance from the Lord. On 24 January 1845 he recorded in his diary: “I inquaired of the Lord whether we should stay here and finish the temple. The ansure [answer] was we should.” Moreover, Elder Young received a revelation that in conducting temple work for the dead, males should be proxies for males, and females should be proxies for females, instead of the earlier practice of an individual acting as a proxy for either sex.

As the Saints prepared at Winter Quarters for the journey to the mountains of Utah, Brigham Young wrote the revelation published as Section 136 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and during the trek of the first pioneer company, on 28 May 1847, he wrote another revelation. Furthermore, when he established the United Order in 1874 it was in response to the following revelation: “Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham, Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.”

He sought continually to be receptive to the voice of the Lord, and he repeatedly affirmed that the Saints could regard his published sermons as scripture to them.

One of the most dramatic manifestations of the power of the Spirit upon Brigham Young while speaking occurred on the occasion after Joseph’s death when many members of the Church assembled at Nauvoo to hear Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young speak. On 8 August 1844 President Young wrote in his diary:

“I arose and spoke to the people, my hart was swolen with compasion toards them and by the power of the Holy Gost even the spirit of the Prophts I was enabled to comfort the harts of the Saints.”

On this occasion the power of the Spirit was so great upon Brother Young that many in the audience testified later that he was transfigured before their eyes.

One of the earliest recorded descriptions of this event was written in February 1846 by George Laub: “Now when President Young arose to address the congregation his voice was the voice of Bro. Joseph and his face appeared as Josephs face & should I not have seen his face but herd his voice I should have declared that it was Joseph.”

Another operation of the Spirit in the life of Brigham Young was that of prophecy. He did not seem to feel this was his special gift, and he sometimes said that his counselor Heber C. Kimball had more of this gift than he. Nevertheless, there were occasions when President Young was greatly moved by the spirit of prophecy. In 1846 as the Saints struggled with sickness in their mid-winter departure from Nauvoo, President Young prophesied that the apostles who seemed near death with illness would be strong in health once they had settled in the place to which the Lord would lead them. Such was the case. On one occasion, President Young also gave a prophetic blessing to a young poetess, saying that her gift would flourish if she stayed close to the Church, but would die within her if she departed from the Saints. Despite a brief career of artistic brilliance, the young woman married a nonmember, departed the Church, and her poetic gift dramatically departed. In a prophecy affecting many persons, Brigham Young promised the members of the Mormon Battalion that they would not have to shed blood or engage in battle during their march into enemy territory in 1846–47. Although the Battalion penetrated enemy territory and captured their strongholds, neither battle nor bloodshed was necessary.

In the conduct of his ministry Brigham Young was confident in the Spirit of the Lord, but was unwilling to exalt his spirituality in the eyes of men. Most of his spiritual experiences he related only to trusted associates. When one of them publicly proclaimed that President Young was the “man like unto Moses” spoken of in scripture, Brother Young chastized him with the wry comment: “I think I am the great man that none of the prophets ever thought of or spoke of.” President Young sought only to do the will of God as he knew it without seeking the praise or honor of men. He especially did not want to appear to be competing in spirituality with the Prophet Joseph Smith. Their missions as leaders of the restoration were different, and Brigham Young was satisfied with magnifying his calling as the Lord revealed it to him. At October conference 1864, President Young quipped: “I have never said that I am not a Prophet; but, if I am not, one thing is certain, I have been very profitable to this people.”

And so he had. During the more than forty years of his apostolic ministry, he had led the Saints through proselyting, mobbings, sufferings, emigration, privation, and colonization, to the security of settlements, chapels, and temples in the mountain west of America. On 29 August 1877 Brigham Young lay on his deathbed. His last words were: “Joseph! Joseph! Joseph!” The friendship of two prophets, seers, and revelators was about to be renewed.

 

bullshit in a bunch of ways

Its true. Smith and Young literally believed the Bible to be literal truth.

Its true. But there is another truth—the Bible is a horrific ethical and moral guide.

 

has lots of the same problems of "we just don't understand why god chose to tell joseph to marry who he did, but they had to do it because god said" just passing the buck to avoid accountability

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. Polygamy and concubines are part of the Biblical definition of “marriage.”

There just isn’t any way around that.

 

 

smith and young had no problem outright upstaging the bible for their own new hot take, let alone negotiating with the bible like anybody else. they followed themselves to pick and choose what they wanted out of the bible. if they'd wanted to do better they could have

That is not unique to Smith and Young.

The Bible contradicts the Bible.

The serious things—polygamy for Smith and Young. Marrying young women—those things are not sins in the Bible.

The Bible is a horrific moral and ethical guide.

There is no defense for women not having rights. But the Bible does not give them rights.

There is no defense for marrying young women. But the Bible does not set the age limit and historians say young women were married at an unrepeatable age. Less than Smiths and Youngs (undefendable) marriages to young women.

But—the Bible is silent on the marriage age for young women.

It is not silent on polygamy, not silent on killing innocent women and children, and not silent on slavery.

 

my "women marriage age in the Bible" background reading leads me to believe that young marriages were usually to partners closer in age than smith's biggest gap let alone young's, which could easily have raised eyebrows in bible times,

This is some extreme conjecture and hyperbole.

Polygamy was normative in the Bible and the marital age for young women was extremely young. Unrepeatably young. The “women marriage age in the Bible” was below the youngest marriage age for Smith and Young.

That is not a justification.

The Bible is a horrible ethical and moral guide.

 

and it's not like the bible say god tells people they have to do age gaps. but ok probably the ancient world could do with big gaps especially for leaders and rich guys (what with lots of ancient sex attitudes being half about women as sexual property of husband anyway), even if true that's not even the end of it

Polygamy and concubines were normative in the Bible.

Historians put the marriage age for young women in the Bible at an unspeakably low age.

 

by the early 1800s lots of people had better judgment than smith and young brought to this. hell by the early christian church people had better judgment than smith and young brought to this. claiming to be prophets morally ahead of society is embarrassing regressing before that.

Some aspects of the restoration match early Christianity.

Baptism for the dead took place in early Christianity.

Early Christians were not creedal trinitarians.

Early Christians believed in deification/theosis.

But polygamy? That is from the Old Testament. The Bible. Where it was normative.

 

 

post focuses on age but when talking this out it goes way deeper, it is a problem easy to touch with pedo labels but holy hell the problems go lots different than that:

There is no marriage age set for young women in the Bible.

Today? Jail. Back in the Bible? No one wrote it down.

The Bible is a horrific ethical and moral guide.

 

 sneaking behind existing spouses back

How is that not Biblical?

Women have no say in the Bible. Women are property in the Bible. Women have no choice in marriage in the Bible.

You can say, “my personal ethics and morality say that Smith not telling Emma was ethically and morally wrong.” But you can’t point to a Bible verse that condemns that. Women are property of men in the Bible. Smith not telling Emma? That is in line with the Bible.

 

, or telling their spouse god says they have to accept a marriage or polygamy or be destroyed,

The Bible condemns that?

Jesus says that anyone who does not learn of Him and Follow Him will be destroyed in the New Testament.

Jesus (in the creedal trinitarian sense) murders innocent women and children in the Old Testament.

The Bible condemns people to Gods judgement in the Bible for not following Him. That’s a thing.

It does not jive with your ethics and morality…? That is because the Bible is a horrific ethical and moral guide.

 

 or telling a new target that they have to do this or god will kill them, or telling a new target that if they say yes it will save them and all their family. you don't find that stuff in the bible

Actually, you do. You do see those things in the Bible.

I am convinced you have not read the Bible.

People were murdered –per the Bible—for not following Noah on his boat. Women and children.

Jesus murdered (in the creedal trinitarian sense) women and children in the Bible in multiple instances for not following Gods anointed.

I am convinced you have not actually read the Bible.

“Jesus is loving and kind, and only ever loving and kind.” Jesus condemned –in the New Testament—those who do not have faith in Him to Gods judgement.

The truth—the Bible is a horrific ethical and moral guide.

 

you bend other things out of shape to make a case for it

No. Not at all.

Polygamy and concubines are normative in the Bible.

Women are property in the Bible. “Smith went behind Emmas back” does not  violate any Biblical scripture. Per the Bible Emma is Smiths property. She has no say in who Smith engages in polygamy with. Per the Bible.

 

People sometimes choose polygamy? Fine, especially if they’re old enough to stand on their feet and understand their options. People sometimes choose age gaps? Better if they’re out of their teens

Polygamy is evil. Its evil in the Bible and its evil in Latter Day Saint history. And its evil today.

It is abusive to women.

But it does not violate Biblical teachings.

 

 

Smith and young couldn’t understand that because “the bible” or “different times”? more accountability dodging, more shifting goalposts where one minute we have to follow what they say because they speak for god but the next minute when they’ve obviously got stuff unbelievably wrong and set society back centuries we just have to let it go because mistakes were made you can’t expect them to do better

Smith and Young clearly did wrong.

Polygamy is wrong.

Marrying young women is wrong.

Smith is clearly a sinner in need of the grace of Christ. So is Young.

There is no ethical or moral defense for Smith or Young. Except that their actions are not condemned in the Bible.

Polygamy? Not condemned in the Bible. Gods anointed did it in the Bible.

Marrying young women? Not condemned in the Bible.

Creating more scripture? That’s a thing Bible writers did. I am just not seeing any glaring thing from the Bible that condemns Smith and Young. Their worst actions align with Biblical norms of Bible, “prophets.”

 

I am still waiting for you definition of adultery.

All the  women in the Temple Lot case were Smiths wives in the Biblical polygamy sense.

Polygamy is not adultery.

 

Here is a link to first hand testimony in the Temple lot case.

You have no first hand testimony or first hand statements that Smith had Biblical relations with already-married men or women.

You are moving the goalposts.

Smith had relations with some number of his wives in polygamy. Single women testified that they were Smiths polygamist wives in the Biblical sense.

The married women? Non existent testimony. Weak evidence. Non existant evidence. No first hand evidence. You are moving the goalposts.

You are moving the goalposts here.

 

 

Emily partridge testified that she had sex with Smith.

Emily Partridge was not married to anyone else when she and Smith had marital relations. Smith was her only husband.

Other women said the same.

Yes. Single women with Smith as their only husband in the Biblical polygamy sense testified –and there is overwhelming evidence—that Smith and some of his single wives who were not married to anyone else had marital relations of a Biblical sense.

 

B. Johnson also claimed that Smith slept with his sister Alvira.

You can use references and full names.

And someone claiming something else is not a first hand historical source. Someone claiming something from someone else is a second hand historical source.

Almera. Almera was single when she was sealed to Smith.

 

 

 Someone else, I think Nobel claimed he had sex with Louisa Beaman. Probably this is why the church admits that he had sex with multiple women before his wife even knew about it. It is in their essay, Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo. This in my opinion is adultery.

Beaman was single when she was sealed to Smith.

You cited single women.

You cited single women.

Relations of a Biblical nature in polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

Smith had physical intimate relations in polygamy with his wives? That does not meet the Biblical standard for sin.

 

It is also adultery according to Section 42 and 49 and then Section 101.

The Bible is our standard here in this thread.

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

The Doctrine and Covenants contradicts itself? So does the Bible. Smith meets the Biblical standard for Prophet.

Stop moving the goalposts. Your gymnastics will get you a headache.

 

It is even adultery according to Section 132 because Smith was "under a vow", around verse 60.

132 matches the Bible in removing the choice for women and giving the man the go-ahead to engage in Biblical polygamy—even if the wife does not approve.

Any choice for the wife is unbiblical as women are property in the Bible.

 

Also, although it is not first hand, it is pretty close. We have the testimony of Josephine the daughter of Sylvia Lyons that her mother told her that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith.

Its not first hand.

Its not close to first hand.

Its not a first hand account, and a trusted historical source calls it weak as a historical source.

 

Hales believed this showed that she had sex with Smith. However, he wants to try and place the sex after a divorce.

Hales does not make that conclusion.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/sylvia-sessions/

We know for sure that Brigham Young had sex with Zina Jacobs with no divorce, but the apologists do try to avoid admitting this in the case of Smith.

Young is a red herring.

Zina—in sworn testimony said that she was sealed to Smith not in the Biblical marital sense but in “eternity only.”

There is no evidence she was a wife of Smith in the Biblical wife sense.

 

 As to the no divorce thing with Brigham Young, he taught that there did not need to be a divorce because he had more priesthood. Don't pretend there was no divorce because they were on the frontier.

They were on the frontier.

That is a stated fact.

There are other facts? Interesting. That’s interesting. They were also on the frontier.

 

The link I sent you by Vogel debunks the apologetic efforts in the case of Joseph Smith. All you have to do is listen to it.

You posted Vogels points.

Debunk? Not hardly. He does not present any more historical facts than what you have posted. He has no first-hand smoking gun. Neither do you.

 

I am well aware that the Bible is filled with contradictions. I know about Jacob marrying sisters and how you don't do this in the law of Moses.

You cannot hold Smith accountable to Levitical Law when Jacob is not held accountable to Levitical law.

You cannot hold Smith accountable to Levitical law when no other Christian is held accountable to Levitical law.

 

You don't have sex with women betrothed or married to other men.

All the women you listed as 100% having marital relations to Smith—were his wives in the Biblical polygamy sense. And not married to anyone else.

You are trying to say (Vogel does this, too, even if he admits that not all of the sealings were Biblical) “Since Smith had relations with this single lady in polygamy, he also had relations with the married people too.” That is just not found in the historical record.

No true prophet I know of, even those who might not even have existed, did this in the Bible.

You have no first hand historical source that Smith did this, either.

Your smoking gun first-hand statements are from single women.

 

Neither is there a single example of a Biblical prophet marrying mothers and their daughters. Smith married more than one mother daughter pair.

Smith violated Levitical Law? So did Jacob.

Smith only had relations with single women. That is what the first-hand historical record says.

 

I am aware that the Bible says nothing about marriage of children except maybe for Jesus' saying that those who offend one of these little ones would be better off with a millstone around their neck etc.

There is no age limit for marriage and an internet search reveals that young women were married at 12-13 in the Bible. Internet search “Bible women marriage age.”

 

 

 It is a pretty harsh statement. This sort of depends on your interpretation, but the prohibition on sex with already married women is not at all fuzzy.

There is no contact between Smith and any woman that he is not sealed to in polygamy.

There is no first hand historical source that has Smith engaging in marital relations with his already-married sealing partners.

 

I can say that the fruits of any number of people, some clearly not prophets involve an injunction to follow Jesus.

Jesus said: follow Me or face the wrath of God. Jesus (in the creedal trinitarian sense) killed women and children in the Bible.

Smith said: follow Christ. Worship Christ.

 

Jesus' clear statement to know them by their fruits is in the Bible but does not require any consideration of the Bible because it didn't even exist then as a single book.

It existed in Smiths day, and the Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

The critical post this is in response to—used the Bible to try to discount Smith.

Whether Smith was an adulterer depends on your definition of adultery. Please give such a definition.

For Smith to have sinned, in the Biblical sense, he would have had to have relations with a person outside of a polygamist sealing.

None of the first-hand historical sources have that happening.

 

 

What is adultery to you? Is it just a meaningless word?

All of the first-hand sources of Smith engaging in physical relations with someone else is within the bounds of Biblical polygamy.

The women saying, “I was Smiths polygamist wife and we engaged in formal marital relations of a physical nature.” All those women were single women married to Smith in a polygamist relationship.

The married men and women Smith was sealed to? No such first hand statements exist.

 

What does one do to be guilty of it?

The Biblical prophets were not guilty of sin –at least in the Bible as a standard--.

 

Then please give your definition of "bearing false witness".

You claim that Smith said negative things about a woman.

While there were people writing down everything Smith said. In journals. In records.

But the claim you make of Smith saying a negative thing about a woman comes from a third-party critical source, and no other source backs up the claim.

And—God lies in the Bible. So even if Smith lied. He would still meet the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

If Smith was breaking the ten commandments, then how can be be considered to have met the "standard"?

That’s the thing. Smiths relations with his polygamist wives would not be a sin in the Biblical sense.

Go through each of the ten commandments. Smith followed them in the Biblical sense.

 

 

According to my understanding, he broke several of the most important commandments including one Jesus mentioned to the young man "defraud not". Therefore, he does not meet any reasonable Biblical standard.

Smith meets the Biblical standard for “prophet.” Many of the Biblical prophets were like Smith—flawed.

 

 

If I am wrong, then I must not understand what bearing false witness, defrauding, and adultery mean, which thing I never had supposed, having been instructed by my parents and church in my youth.

The historical evidence you provide to make your points is extremely lacking.

Smith is not perfect. But he meets the very low standard of the Biblical standard for “prophet.”

 

What is bearing false witness?

God lies in the Bible. Smith does too? Interesting.

The source you have provided for Smith lying is lacking. Its not a first hand source, and not met by any other source.

Smith lie?” Probably. Smith also talked about his need to repent in the name of Jesus.

And Christianity is built on the concept of repentance through Christ. Smith lied and needed to repent? Probably. He was flawed. Like other Biblical prophets.

 

What is adultery?

Polygamy is not sin.

The first-hand sources of women claiming to have had been Smiths wife in the Biblical sense were in polygamy.

 

What does it mean to defraud?

Not sure what your claim here is.

Smith was not perfect. Like Biblical prophets.

 

I agree that the Bible has a lot of problems, but it is not as bad as you seem to think

The Bible is a horrific moral and ethical guide.

And it was Smiths moral and ethical  guide.

 

I have never at any time considered polygamy to necessarily be adultery.

The physical intimate marital contact that Smith had with women was within the Biblical concept of polygamy.

Not a sin.

 

 The sealing to men might have taken place with Smith. I personally think it did. I believe there might have been one example. However, this adoption theology was much more prevalent during the time of Brigham Young.

Some number of Smiths sealings were not in the Biblical sense.

There is strong evidence that the sealings to married people did not include marital relations of a physical nature.

 

 

I keep agreeing with you that polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. However, marriage of already married women is a sin in the Bible.

When asked to provide a source that Smith engaged in physical relations with already-married people, you did not provide a first-hand source.

I provided a trusted history source that says that physical contact between Smith and already-married people is non-existant and no first hand source exists making the claim.

Sin? You and I both know you won’t provide a first hand source making the claim that Smith engaged in physical contact of a marital nature with already-married women.

So—you have no evidence Smith committed sin.

And—Smith did not follow Levitical Law. For one, Jacob did not. And two, Levitical Law does not apply to Christians.

 

I am still waiting for what you think defines adultery.

And I am still waiting for a first-hand source that Smith had physical contact of a marital nature with the already-married individuals.

Smiths physical contact with women were with women he was in a polygamist relationship in the Biblical sense. There just is not getting around that for you.

 

 

You want to say polygamy is not adultery.

That is a Biblical standard. Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

 

 I agree that it is not necessarily adultery in the Bible. I have sent you a link which shows that he did have sex with already married women just as Brigham Young did.

Your link did not include a first hand source. I went to your source. It was a second hand source. And I provided you with information from a trusted history source that describes your source as weak.

Weak.

You have no smoking gun here.

And the woman left her husband for Young. That was her choice. And no divorce in the frontier? Not uncommon. Pratt had a wife who did the same. That is not uncommon. It was her choice.

 

 This is very definitely adultery in the Bible.

You bring in Young as a red herring because she left her husband, married young, and in the frontier there was no divorce.

But Smith? You have to bring in a red herring to try to attach it to Smith.

 

 I used to blame B.Y. unfairly, but it looks like Smith did it first.

You are engaging in gymnastics and making tenuous connections to make your point.

 

When you have given a suitable definition of adultery, then you can try and give a suitable definition of “bearing false witness”. If you can’t even elucidate the meaning of the ten commandments, then why should anyone believe you when you say Smith meets the definition of a Biblical prophet?

Ad hominem.

Projection.

I have gone through each of the ten commandments, and Smith meets each one.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 I keep agreeing that polygamy was not a sin in the Bible. However, what Smith did was a sin in the Bible. It included bearing false witness and adultery.

The historical narrative you provided that Smith did those things are non-existant, weak, and you have no first hand source.

What we can 100% establish—the women Smith had marital contact with were his wives in the Biblical polygamy sense.

 

I have been trying to be open minded about adultery. I am still waiting for your definition. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" This is in the Bible and is not just part of some Levitical law equivalent to eating pork.

Smith did not have marital contact with anyone he was not married to in a Biblical polygamy sense.

The evidence you provide is that yes, Smith was sealed to women. But Leviticus prevents marriage to sisters and moms.

Your claim. Your claim is that yes, Smith is sealed to these women in polygamy. But technically, since It is prohibited in Levitical Law, Smith violated a technicality of Levitical Law.

That is ---your--- claim.

Your claim is wrong for several reasons.

Jacob married sisters in the Old Testament. Gods chosen Jacob violated Levitical Law and maintained good standing in the Bible.

And Levitical Law does not apply to Christians since Christ ended the old law.

You claim that Smith sinned when he did not ask his wife to allow polygamy. That is un-Biblical. Women have no choice in the Bible.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

You calling Smiths relations with women in polygamy a sin does not match Biblical teachings.

 

Jesus listed it when the young man asked him what he should do to gain eternal life. Paul lists it also very specifically in Romans 2. It is forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments, but you don't even seem to know what it is.

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. And Smiths relations with women of a Biblical intimate nature took place in polygamy.

“But Smith married sisters in polygamy!” Sure. And so did Jacob in the Bible. Righteous Jacob. Not a sin.

“But Smith was sealed to already-married women and men!” Sure. But you have not and wont (cause its not there) provide a first-hand source that relations took place between them. It’s a thing you can’t do.

 

 

Hosea sure knew. The marriage metaphor is based on it. If I am wrong, then give me your definition of it. I go by what is understood throughout the Bible and also the Book of Mormon.

Jacob married sisters. Jacob violated the Levitical Law. Did just fine in the eyes of God in the Bible.

Not called a sinner in the Bible.

Smith? Meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

However, Smith very definitely did not follow the stuff in Leviticus 18.

Leviticus does not apply to Christians… the New Testament teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection fulfilled the law, which is why its many rules and regulations have never applied to Christians. 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.”

 

You say these things were all fulfilled,

I am quoting from the New Testament. “Christ is the end of the law.”

You claim Smith is a sinner because of Levitical Law. Levitical law ended with Christ.

 

but if you are going by what is in the Bible to determine an undefined "Biblical standard",

Undefined? I responded to a critical list from the Bible that Smith supposedly failed, but I showed how Smith meets the standard.

 

 then Smith fails.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

Also, am I really supposed to think that it is ok to marry and have sex with your mother in law?

Try not to quote Levitical Law, as it does not apply to Christians. But quote the Bible to show its wrong.

Killing innocents?

Slavery?

Women having zero choice?

All supported by Biblical teachings.

 

 Paul spoke against some things of a similar nature but with fathers and sons having what you insist on calling "Biblical relations" with the same woman. I strongly suspect that he would not have approved of "Biblical relations" with a mother in law either.

You are adding red herrings.

Quote the Bible.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of prophet.

 

Even though you can't give a clear definition of adultery, you make the unsupported claim that Smith met some ill defined Biblical standard.

A critic posted a list of Bible standards that Smith does not meet. I posted a response that Smith actually meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

 

I acknowledge that there were those false prophets in Jeremiah who did what Smith did, but somehow I don't think this is what you mean.

Christ (in a creedal trinitarian sense) murdered children and innocent women in the Bible.

Smith? The smoking gun you present on Smith being similar to Old Testament Christ is smoke and mirrors and no first hand source.

 

 

But who knows? You have given no well defined standard other than the single reference to Matt. 7 about knowing them by their fruits.

Yeah, I just responded to you.

Smiths fruits are: follow and worship Christ.

 

 You are like the person who claims that it is colder in the mountains than in the winter. With no well defined definition of a “standard”, how can you make an assertion that someone has met the “standard”.

If you forget what thread you are participating in—go read the OP again.

 

It is not clear how most things in your list even pertain to Joseph Smith so you are attempting to respond to criticisms which are not even well defined as applied to him, with the possible exception of Balaam.

I did not create the list. I responded to it.

Smith? Testified of Christ.

 

Yes, looking at a seer stone in a hat does resemble the kind of superstitious nonsense coming from Balaam.

Smith and his neighbors who used seer stones were Christians. Devout Christians. The Chase family who used seer stones were Methodists. Harcore methodists. Smith and his neighbors engaged in folk Christianity.

Using seer stones for answers is comparable to the Bible teaching of “casting lots” seeking religious truth from God in the Bible. Folk Christianity is Biblical.

Smith engaging in folk Christianity with his Christian neighbors aligns with Christian teachings in the Bible.

You might scoff at the folk Christian Biblical teaching of “casting lots” to seek answers from God. But not folk Christian Smith or his folk Christian neighbors.

 

Having a vision of an angel with a sword also.

Angels are all over the Bible.

 

But if they were attaching to Smith, then all you have done is argue that Biblically you might not be able to rule out Smith as being a valid prophet.

Smith, per the standard of the Bible—is a valid “prophet.”

 

This does not show that he is a true prophet at all. I can know a number is larger than 20 without knowing that it is 35. The reference to Matt. 7 says to know them by their fruits. It does not say to know them by what is written in the Bible. There was no Bible then.

We have the Bible now. Smith had the Bible and used it as a moral and ethical guide.

Jesus (in the creedal trinitarian sense) murdered children in the Bible. And said those who do not learn of Him or follow Him will face Gods wrath in the New Testament.

Smith? His fruits are his testimony to others: follow Christ. Worship Christ.

 

Didn't you mention knowing them by their fruits?

Smiths fruits were the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and covenants that testify of Jesus.

Me? I responded to claims. Look at the OP.

 It is the one thing which might be a standard by which one can measure Smith's prophetic claims and he fails miserably because his fruits included bearing false witness and adultery.

He bore witness of the resurrected Jesus.

And marital contact of a Biblical nature with a spouse in a polygamist relationship is not a sin in the Bible.

 

 

His fruits were simply not Christ like. However, I agree that he had the ethics and morality of the sons of Eli and of those two prophets in Jeremiah 29. He did not have the ethics and morality of Isaiah.

Smith had more ethics and integrity than Jesus (in creedal trinitarianism) killing innocent women and children in the Old Testament.

 

You still have not given me a Biblical standard for a prophet other than the single one identified by Jesus which is very good.

I responded to a critical list and showed that Smith met the Biblical standard for “prophet.”

 

Neither have you given me a workable definition of adultery which will not condemn Smith as an adulterer. I use the usual definition.

I look to the Bible and see Jesus (in creedal trinitarianism) in the Old Testament killing women and children.

And Polygamy justified. And slavery justified. In the Bible.

Smith? Meets the Biblical standard for “prophet.”

 

Just look at Test 10 for example. There is no reason to think that any of it pertains to Smith.

Numbers 24 pertains to Balaam. Do you really want people to be comparing Smith to him? Well, they did both see an angel with a sword and at least one account has Smith riding his horse when the angel appeared. Is this a joke?

Angels are all over the Bible.

Smith certainly taught things which conflicted what is in the Bible. Marriage of women and their daughters for one.

Smith taught things in-line with the Bible.

Jacob –chosen by God—married sisters.

But pay attention—you are not condemning Smiths marriage to young women. Because its not condemned in the Bible.

You have not given any kind of rational Biblical standard by which one can judge the veracity of a claim to prophetic authority which could apply to Smith other than the one Jesus gave, to know them by their fruits and in this single example, Smith fails.

I responded to a critical list.

And showed that Smith meets the standard for Biblical “prophet.”

“Only prophets who meet all the Levitical rules are Biblical prophets.” Jacob fails. And he is chosen by God. And post-Christ, those old Levitical rules do not apply. They were nailed to a cross.

 

It doesn't make any sense. This is what I am trying to tell you. There are a lot of vague verses lifted out of context and then a conclusion that somehow Smith meets this standard.

I responded to a critical list. I did not provide the list, a critic did.

I simply showed that Smith met the criteria on the list.

 

 

Well, many people can be claimed to have done so just as well and often it is not in the least clear how any of it applies to any particular person. An exception is the verse from Matt. 7. It actually says something which can be tested in relation to a particular person, and Smith fails the test.

Jesus says those who do not know if Him and choose to follow Him will face the wrath of God. Jesus in the Old Testament (following creedal trinitarianism) killed women and children.

Jesus says: follow Me.

Smith says: follow Jesus.

Smiths fruits; the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are clear: we are saved when we follow Jesus.

 

However, you do not include some other verses which actually do indicate whether a prophetic claimant is a true prophet. For example, you quote from Deut. 18 but leave out the part where it states that a prophet who speaks presumptuously on behalf of God shall die. Then it even describes how to tell. If their prophecies do not come to pass, then that is the thing the Lord has not spoken.

The Bible contradicts the Bible.

And even Jesus gave at least one false prophecy.

 

 

None of Smith's prophecies can be shown to have actually taken place and some can be proven false.

Not according to apologists.

 

You still have not given a definition of adultery, bearing false witness, or taking the name of God in vain which will not make Smith guilty of these things.

Your historical record of Smith doing those things is weak and non-existant.

 

 

Physical contact of a Biblical nature is not a sin in the Bible? This is not a definition of adultery.

Its true though. If Smith had relations with a woman he was sealed to in polygamy, per the Bible, that’s not a sin.

Smiths wife did not know? Not a sin—per the Bible.

 

 

You are simply making a concatenation of assertions which don't even follow from the verses you cite.

Same with you. The verses you cite do not make the claims you assert.

The historical record you cite do not match your claims.

This is a pot meets kettle situation for you.

 

 

You are also ignoring the major issues identified in the Bible. I think you don't know what you mean by words like adultery. You are just recycling jargon. If not, give the definitions. There is no question that Smith and especially his cronies slandered women.

Cite the historical source. Cite the first-hand historical source.

 

There is no question that he had secret sexual liaisons with multiple women while deceiving his wife.

That’s not against the rules in the Bible. You conveniently left out that the “multiple women” were his polygamist wives. And polygamy is not a sin in the Bible, no matter how hard you want it to be.

 

There is no question that he married other men’s wives. Even the church admits this.

Smith was sealed to married women and men.

No argument.

The historical record that he had physical relations of a Biblical nature with married individuals is non existent to weak. Zero first-hand source exists.

Plenty of first hand sources to the single women in polygamy with Smith, though.