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.

 

I don't understand what you are driving at. I keep agreeing with you that polygamy was normative in the Bible. This includes having sex with one's plural wives.

Women had zero input and zero choice in the Bible. The relations described in the Bible by todays standards would be assault.

“Smith broke the law of the land in Illinois by practicing polygamy.”

The Biblical leaders not giving a choice to women would also be breaking the law of the land today.

The argument is: Does Smith meet the standard of a Biblical “prophet.”

The Biblical prophets did not give consent to women. Women had no consent in the Bible.

And the only women historians claim (even critical historians will point to evidence of sealings) that Smith only had formal Biblical relations with women he was sealed to.

 

I keep pointing out that sex with a woman married to another man is not normative in the Bible and was even a capital offense in the law of Moses.

I keep pointing out that Smith giving consent to the women and giving the women a choice is far beyond what was offered to women in the Bible.

And it is not settled by historians –no matter how many times you want to repeat it—that Smith had formal intimate relations with married women.

Even Vogel admits that not all  of the sealings were Biblical in nature. And Vogels evidence is (essentially), “Smith said polygamy was for having children, so therefore the relationships were Biblical.” Vogel has evidence. His conclusions are where we part company.

And there are academically published historians who say: Smith likely did not have Biblical relations with the married women.

 

This is not saying anything against polygamy. It is saying that sex with another man's wife is forbidden.

A mans wife can’t choose to leave him in the Bible. Sure. I am with you on this. Women have no choice in the Bible. Relations described in the Bible would be considered assault by todays standards.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

I have sent you a solid argument that Smith engaged in sex with women married to other men.

I am not sure its all that solid of an argument.

Your smoking gun is that an already-married woman made the (gasp) choice to also be sealed to Smith?

A woman making a choice? That’s not Biblical.

A sealing to Smith? Polygamy? That is Biblical. Relations within polygamy? That is Biblical.

I don’t think you have the smoking gun you think you have. Its not settled by historians that Smith had formal Biblical relations with the already-married women.

 

If you refuse to believe this, then you must explain how it was that the woman in question told her daughter that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith and not have had sex with him.

This is not settled history. The historical evidence for the claim is pretty weak.

The daughter (second hand, now) made the claim and her mother was in old age. This is not settled.

“The only evidence for [Biblical] relations between Joseph Smith and Sylvia Sessions is a statement by Sylvia's daughter Josephine, who in 1915 recalled her mother's deathbed confession in 1882 that she was Joseph Smith's daughter.

However, modern DNA testing has ruled out Joseph Smith's parentage of Josephine, complicating this claim (her biological father was Windsor Lyon, Sylvia's legal husband). This could mean Sylvia had sex with both men and was confused about who the father was, it could mean she meant Josephine was Joseph's non-literal spiritual daughter, or it could mean Sylvia was mistaken in her old age. The evidence for sexuality is not especially strong.” https://mormonr.org/qnas/VvSJBb/joseph_smith_and_polygamy

 

Perhaps you think she was lying.

Maybe. Either way the second-hand source is weak. And trusted and known to be impartial historians list the historical evidence for its veracity as, “weak.”

 

If so, then you are still faced with the problem that Brigham Young without any question had sexual relations with a woman married to another man with no divorce.

Young and the Saints did not have much by way of need for formal divorce. As they were fleeing a corrupt government they feared with their lives.

You will have to give Young grace here for not getting divorced on the frontier.

The wife was clear she left her husband and was clear she was with Young. Give the frontier Saints some grace here. And this is not a smoking gun. You bring up Young as a red herring in a discussion on Smith.

 

This implies just as well that the church you seem determined to defend is corrupt.

Pull your punches.

The standard is the Bible. Smith (and likely Young) meet the standard of Biblical prophet. Biblical prophets did some pretty corrupt things.

Marriage as described in the Bible -with women having no input or choice- would be seriously criminal today, for instance.

 

You keep saying that Smith satisfied the definition of a prophet in the Bible. Can you give me this definition?

I keep giving it over and over again. You bring up standards outside the Bible because Smith meets the Biblical standard. I started the thread with the standards from the Bible and how Smith actually meets them. Come on now. Go to the top of the page, man.

 

I have not seen one in the Bible that I can remember. I want to see it from the Bible, not just your own construction.

Go to the top of the page. Then read my responses.

 

 

Here is a question I would like you to answer.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.” The prophets in the Bible made errors and mistakes—still prophets.

So here are my questions for you.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Smith's fruits included adultery. Therefore his fruits were evil and he should be rejected. If not, give me a definition of adultery which will not include Smith's actions which include sexual relations and deception when he was under a vow to Emma Smith. Can you give me such a definition?

You are making a supposition here. A judgement that Smith had relations with women outside of polygamy.

All the women Smith had relations with of a Biblical nature—he was sealed to.

You cite an woman who was married who was also sealed to Smith, and I cite the historical narrative, the historical evidence is weak for there to have been marital contact between Smith and the woman in the bounds of polygamist marriage.

 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Smiths fruits included bearing false witness when he defamed women who told the truth about his polygamous advances. He called them whores in the newspaper and in public meetings. Smith's fruits were evil and he should be rejected. Can you explain how calling innocent women whores is not bearing false witness?

I am not sure this is an accurate and honest claim. I think you are engaging in hyperbole here. Critics make the claim. But Smith did not publish it in a newspaper or public meeting for members. It was a claim by critics-- published in critical literature, not in literature for the consumption of the Saints, and not by Smith… “In a public speech, Joseph Smith calls Orson Pratt’s wife, Sarah, “A whore from her mother’s breast” (The Sangamo Journal. July 29, 1842[11]). This entry is from an anti-mormon newspaper, and is the only source of this statement”

A critic makes the claim. And you repeat the claim as factual. Do you not see a problem.

You want me to answer something that may or may not –likely not, given the historical source—to have happened.

Come on now.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in Vain.

Smith told people to follow God and Smith testified of Christ.

Smith did this by claiming that adultery was approved by God and that women should have sex with him from which great blessings to them would follow even though he well knew that God had said not to commit adultery.

Smith likely –per the historical sources—only had relations of a Biblical nature with women to which he was “sealed” in a polygamist relationship.

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

James says that with God there is no variableness neither shadow of changing.

The Bible contradicts the Bible. Parts of the Bible contradict James. God lies in the Bible.

 

 Thus he does not change his mind about adultery.

Polygamy is Biblical, Gods anointed practice it in the Bible. Women have no choice in the Bible.

Churches today—women have a choice on who they marry. So clearly God changes. At least on giving women a choice on who they marry.

 

See also 2 Nephi 26 near the end where there is a list of things which don't come from God even though Smith said otherwise. Smith's fruits were evil and he should be rejected.

You don’t actually quote specific verses, so when someone looks them up they can see why you just make sweeping generalizations instead of quote directly from them. Smiths “fruits” testify of Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants testifies of Christ.

 

Can you explain why claiming to speak for God while promoting that which God has forbidden in the ten commandments is not taking God's name in vain?

Polygamy is not condemned in the ten commandments. Polygamy is normative in the Bible. All the women historians say Smith had relations with—were in polygamist relationships. Even critical historians will point to evidence of polygamy they may disagree with. But its there.

 

If something is condoned in the Bible, does it follow that it is good? Would you say that the murder of the Midianite women and male children in Numbers 31 was good? Who or what is your God, proof texts of the Bible or the righteous Father in Heaven described by Jesus?

Jesus condemens those who do not have faith in Him. Promising the wrath of God on those who do not follow Him. Murder. Wrath of God. There is not anything in Smith and Young that is not also in the Bible. Polygamy? Biblical

You are upset that some number of women -chose- (not Biblical) to be sealed to Smith and Young.

 

Which of the prophets ever committed adultery with a woman married to another man?

Smiths polygamy was ordained by God. According to Smith.

Smiths sealings to women and any subsequent Biblical relations with women in polygamy was ordained by God.

 

Give me a name. I will give you two. Zedekiah and Ahab from Jeremiah 29. These were false prophets. As to priesthood holders we could include the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phineas. God rejected these men. Shouldn't we also reject them as well as those who follow their bad examples, by Jesus' criterion "know them by their fruits".

There are plenty of “righteous” leaders in the Bible who killed innocents, took the lives of children and women, married women without consent. Did much much worse than Smith and Young. You are trying to do two things. Acknowledge that polygamy was normative in the Bible and that relations in polygamy were ok by God. But create a false standard that Smith fails against.

The truth… Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

If we don't, then wouldn't Jesus say something like this: "why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things I say?"

Jesus condemned those who did not follow Him. He promised the wrath of God on those who simply chose not to follow Him.

Smith? Followed Christ and told people—follow Christ. And the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants testify of Christ.

 

I think Smith was very similar to the prophets that Jeremiah spoke of. He even slept with other men's wives like a couple of them did. However, the literary prophets, as far as we know, were good men, unlike Smith who was an adulterer. His fruits also included, in addition to adultery, the defamation of women. Therefore, by Jesus' criterion for determining false prophets, he should be rejected.

Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.” Even the fiercest of critics admit that Smith was sealed to the women he had relations with, or admit there is evidence of such. And that not all of Smiths sealings resulted in Biblical relations.

Some of Smiths fiercest defenders were women.

Smith testified of Christ and told others to follow Christ.

 

If there are ways to question whether Smith had sex with already married women, there is no way to argue with the fact that Brigham Young did so. That is why Hale’s strenuous arguments which are debunked by Vogel seem a little like straightening the deck chairs on the titanic as the ship went down.

Hales and other historians have claimed to have debunked Vogel.

I think you brought in Young as a red herring.

I have actually read the entire Bible multiple times and continue to read it, especially various prophets like Isaiah. I have even read the Pentateuch and have an idea what is in it. I believe many things in the Pentateuch are harmonious with the material in Section 132. It is an ugly slander of God just as Section 132. Jesus said something different when he describes God as our Father in Heaven. Whoever wrote 1 John also. You should decide. Do you worship a loving righteous Father in Heaven in 1 John or in the Sermon on the Mount or that repellant monster who commands massacres and genocides. These are not the same at all.

The Bible contradicts the Bible and elements of Latter Day scripture contradicts other elements of Latter Day scripture.

 

I keep saying Smith was an adulterer and I can give several reasons for saying so, including what is in Section 132 and 42. I asked you for a definition of adultery with the property that Smith would not be an adulterer. I am still waiting. I don't know how to do it and I don't think you can do it.

I quoted the specific verses from 132 and 42 that contradicted your claims. Arguing about arguing.

Smith had relations with women he was sealed-to in polygamy. Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

The reason I mention Brigham Young should be clear. He was Joseph Smith's successor and according to the church followed Smith. If he did things, they will have been based on something done by Smith. I am not a Snufferite who says that this is not the case. Also, since Brigham Young was clearly an adulterer, what does this mean about the church which venerates him? However, he was also a murderer and there is documented evidence to show this.

Start a separate thread on Young. My premise is, “Smith meets the Biblical standard of ‘Prophet’”

Young? Biblical prophets had innocent women and children killed. You can do that and still be a “prophet.” In the Bibl.

I keep telling you that the Jesus of the N.T. is not the same as the one described in Section 132.

 

Section 132 says to follow and worship the Jesus of the New Testament.

Jesus promises the wrath of God for those who do not follow and believe Him in the New Testament.

132 aligns with previous scripture.

 

 

The latter threatens to destroy women.

And men. Why do you leave this out…? That is an odd curiosity. Why do you single out men? I already quoted the verses. Men and women are condemned. Just as they are in the New Testament.

Jesus promises destruction on those who do not follow Him and believe in Him in the New Testament.

 

This was never the case with the Jesus of the New Testament who was kind to them.

Jesus in the New Testament swears judgement down on women for simply not believing in Him.

(Judgement for the men too, but I was just using your logic).

 

 

Section 132 is not about the sacrifice of Jesus.

132 testifies of Jesus. And Jesus swears judgement on women (and men) in the New Testament for simply not beliving in Him.

 

It is about polygamy,

 

That’s Biblical.

destruction of women,

That is Biblical. Women are property in the Bible. And non-believers are condemned (like 132 does) in the New Testament.

marrying ten virgins,

That is Biblical.

 

exaltation of Smith and others who get harems,

Harems like Biblical prophets? Come on now. Concubines and polygamy is Biblical.

 

and damnation of those who don't.

That is Biblical. Directly from Jesus’ mouth in the New Testament. Those women (and men) who follow Him are saved. Those women (and men) who do not face the wrath of God.

 

It is ugly.

The Bible is a horrific moral and ethical guide. It is schizophrenic.

 

 It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon or with the New Testament.

Polygamy is condemned in the Book of Mormon. It is normative in the Bible.

 

I don't know why Hales and Bradley should make a big deal of this Sylvia Lyon thing.

Every historian interested in researching Latter Day Saint history is interested.

You honestly do not know why LDS Christian polygamy historians want to research and understand LDS Christian polygamy?

Come on now.

 

There is no question at all about Brigham Young's adultery with Henry Jacobs' wife.

Why are you switching between Young and Smith?

If she was sealed to Smith in a polygamist relationship—using the Bible as a standard, Smith would not be violating a Biblical standard.

If she was sealed to Young, that would not be violating the Biblical standard.

 

There wasn't even a divorce from Henry.

For Young? Why are you switching between accusations to Smith to accusations to Young?

The gymnastics must hurt your neck.

 

 She was having sex with two men at once and likely had two marriages at once, one legal and the other with Smith.

You understand that a 50 minute video is not that easy to watch and answer.

You are going to have to lay out the argument, and I will have to respond.

But just so you know, there are historians who disagree with Vogels conclusions. You understand that, right. Like Hales and Bradley are easy to find. You understand that, right.

Vogel is not the sole only historian of LDS Christian polygamy.

From how I see it, no one is having relations with anyone they are not married to or sealed to. Vogel even admits that some number of Smiths sealings were for eternity only. And his “smoking gun” is not all that smoking when it comes to categorically proving Biblical relations between Nauvoo polygamists.

 

For years I blamed Brigham Young for this kind of thing and tried to show that Joseph Smith did not start polygamy. This was not correct.

No published historian. No academically accepted historian teaches or taught that Smith did not teach and practice Biblical polygamy.

 

Hales and Bradley both will admit that Smith had sex with women other than Emma without her knowledge or consent.

This is not damning. Using the Bible as a moral and ethical guide. Women have no choice in marriage. They have no choice in who their husband marries.

 

However, Smith's translations of the facsimiles were debunked in 1862 by French scholars who could read Egyptian.

I don’t think anyone including official LDS Christian Church Historians claim that Smith could read or write Egyptian. And the miracles in the Bible can only be accepted through faith.

 

 

Those who said Smith told them about the angel include people like Lorenzo Snow and his sister as well as many others. However, this is actually something which can be investigated more. Hales has an interesting article on this. You find that the accounts of this angel come from well after Smith's death. However, the church is determined to believe this nonsense.

There are angels and angelic visitations throughout the Bible.

 

I gave you an example of a prophecy which was clearly false. Barnes died and nothing happened.

And I established the Bible as the Biblical standard of a Biblical “Prophet” and the Bible is full of contrradictions. It contradicts itself. And contains false prophecies. Clearly a “prophet” can give false prophecies.

 

When I mention adultery I am using the definition in Section 132 which says that if a man is under a vow and has sex with a woman other than his wife he commits adultery.

You have a couple problems here.

The first is the standard of a Biblical prophet is the Bible. And the Bible is a horrific moral and ethical guide. So I can see why you are trying to switch to other standards.

That’s your first problem.

Your second problem is Section 132 does not make your point. I can see why you did not want to –actually—quote 132. You wanted to paraphrase it. Here is the quote you wanted to avoid…

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

Now. You have the problem of showing who Smith had Biblical relations with he did not have “the holy anointing” with. Smith was sealed to all the women who claim to have had Biblical relations with him. Smith was sealed to all the women who others claim he had Biblical realations with.

Smith meets the Biblical standard.

And the verse you use from the Doctrine and Covenants does not make the point you need it to make.

 

This is the standard definition. It says something similar about women.

Physcical Biblical intimacy between marital partners  is not adultery in polygamy in the Bible.

The verse you paraphrased and did not quote clearly says that relations between “anointed” partners is ok.

Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.”

I can see why you want to use the Doctrine and Covenants. I can see why you want to avoid the Bible. The Bible is not a good book when it comes to being a moral and ethical guide. Your problem—The Doctrine and Covenants does not call Smiths intimate relations with plural wives to be a sin.

I call it a sin.

I call it a horrific sin. But the verse you paraphrased and did not quote—you did not quote it on purpose.

 

In addition, my parents gave me such definitions and so did the church of my youth. I am NOT necessarily referring to polygamy, the practice of having more than one wife. I have never regarded that as necessarily adultery. I think Section 42 also gives a good definition of adultery and it is the usual one.

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. Physical relations with marital partners in polygamy in the Bible is not a sin. And the Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

And the standard I am defending is –Smith meets the ***Biblical*** standard of “Prophet.” So I can see why you are trying to quote other books other than the Bible.

Here are the verses from Doctrine and Covenants Section 42, and they (like the Bible) do not condemn polygamist relations…

24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.

25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;

I think you are hoping to find scriptures that contradict the Bible, “adultery is sin, and polygamy is adultery” something like that. You keep paraphrasing scriptures, not quoting them, and they don’t actually say what you imply they say.

 

Listen to Vogel's presentation and you will see that there is a desperate attempt to sanitize this event.

Link to an open source academically published article or something. Posting a hour-long video of -an- historian that is contradicted by other historians is not fair.

Vogel is a fine historian. But so are the historians who show that he is wrong on some number of conclusions.

 I don't think there is any point in doing this, however, given Brigham Young and his practice of destroying marriages by adding the wife to his set of "many wives and concubines". What Brigham Young did was a capital offense in the Law of Moses because the women were married to other men.

I am struggling to understand why you are trying to bring Brigham Young into the argument. You are trying to mix up Young and Smith. I don’t know any academically published historian who accuses either of formal Biblical relations with a woman he was already not sealed-to. Or acknowledges historic argument and evidence for a sealing at the very least.

 

Smith's Jesus who threatens women with destruction in Section 132 is simply not Jesus. Jesus was always kind to women.

The destruction in the Bible is for both men and women. And the destruction in 132:26 does not single out women. ”…and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies…”

Why would you say that Jesus is threatening women with destruction when it is both women and men…? I keep running into a pattern with you where you make broad claims, don’t cite a specific verse, then the verse does not match what point you are trying to make.

Smith taught: follow Jesus. The Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the Book of Mormon. The Jesus of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Jesus that rose from the dead.

You are trying to make points that are not actually found in the verses you are paraphrasing.

 

He even had friends who were women.

It would have been nice if Jesus had said, “stop treating women as property.”

Or, “hey, human chattel slavery is a bad idea.”

Some of Smiths fiercest defenders werer women. Smith meets the Biblical definition of “Prophet.”

He was the kindest and most gracious of men, not a bureaucratic monster described in Section 132.

I am not sure you have actually read the entire Bible.

Doctrine and Covenants is clear. Mankind is saved through Jesus and only Jesus.

 However, Section 132 is a blasphemous obscenity which has nothing to do with Jesus.

Doctrine and Covenants and 132 are clear—mankind is saved through Jesus’ sacrifice.

I can see why you are trying to switch focus to the Doctrine and Covenants. Because Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

Levirate marriage was not at all a mandate like "thou shalt not commit adultery".

It was the mandate when certain circumstances were met.

And polygamy was not adultery.

It was an optional commandment.

 

It was the mandate when certain circumstances were met. There just is no gymnastics around that fact.

 

I do think that those who chose not to follow this had some social stigma attached to them. It was a very good custom and not in the least wicked. It is certainly the nearest thing to a commandment to practice polygamy.

Polygamy and concubines were a standard element of “Biblical marriage” and Biblical marriage included no choice or options for women.

 

Smith's version of Christ is not the one in the New Testament although he uses the same words.

This does not make any sense. This is some gymnastics. If Smith is quoting from the New Testament, then Smith is teaching -from- the New Testament.

Smith told people: follow the Christ of the New Testament. Also, the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ more than the Bible. Same with the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

Levirate marriage was a very good custom but was not a commandment necessary to gain some eternal reward. There was even a procedure to be followed if you did not wish to participate in it. This is in the Book of Ruth as well as in the law of Moses.

Levirate marriage was the mandate from God.

 

There is no commandment for anyone to practice polygamy other than the optional Levirate marriage.

Levirate marriage was the mandate from God.

 

You are referring to the parable of the ewe lamb which is where Nathan tells David that he gave him his master's wives etc.

It is clear from the Biblical text that God gave David plural wives. Spin it how you want. That’s the text.

 

I sent you a video by Vogel discussing an instance where Smith had sex with another man's wife.

Even Vogel admits that not every sealing of Smith was consummated in the Biblical sense.

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. And Vogel cannot give a name of a woman Smith had relations with that Smith was not sealed to in a religious sealing.

Both Vogel and Quinn admit that not every sealing resulted in a Biblical relationship.

Hales pushes back against Vogel on this.

 

This is well known and the church makes every attempt to cover it up,

There is no covering up history.

It is not settled history. Vogel and Hales have a very public exchange and have both been published academically pushing back on each other on this question.

It is not settled history. And even Vogel admits that Smith did not engage in physical relations in a Biblical nature with each sealing. And even Vogel cannot name a woman who Smith had physical relations with that he was not sealed to.

 

 but there is no covering up Brigham Young's destruction of the Jacobs family in which he added Zina Jacobs to his collection of "many wives and concubines".

Sounds pretty Biblical.

 

The sexual relations with the partridge sisters is accepted by the church, but they were not married to someone else so not as bad I guess.

Biblical polygamy likely included relations of a Biblical nature.

Smith meets the definition of Biblical “Prophet.”

 

That Sylvia had sex with Smith was implied when she told her daughter Josephine that she was Smith's daughter. The church has believed this all along but they try to make it appear to be after a divorce of some sort. Vogel explodes this desperate attempt to sanitize.

I am not sure what there is to sanitize. You keep quoting Vogel, as if Vogel is the only historian who has studied these issues. Hales and Bradley both directly push back against Vogel on this particular issue.

There really is nothing that needs to be sanitized. History is history. The Bible is the Bible.

Bible leaders had plural wives. That they likely had relations with.

Smith had plural wives. Some of which he likely had relations with.

History is history. The Bible is the Bible. Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.”

 

If false prophecies are not disqualifying which I would agree with, then they are not in any way evidence that a man is a prophet either. The thing which matters are their fruits evil or not. As to Barnes. He died so unless we missed the big event with Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven with the 144000, it was a false prophecy.

The Bible is full of false prophecies. And referenced Books that are not actually in the Bible.

Yeah, if you look up apologists, they have explanations for Smiths prophecies.

 

If Smith had a personal relation with God, then I guess it didn't work out too well. Look at the fruits of Smith: defamation of women,

Women had more power and authority in the Nauvoo Church under Smith than they do today. This makes no sense.

 

 adultery with multiple women,

Polygamy is not adultery in the Bible. Don’t know why you keep mentioning this Historian Hales and Bradley both line up historical facts and evidence that Smith did not have Biblical relations with already-married women. There are other historians who line up with Bradley and Hales. And even Vogel admits that not every sealing of Smith resulted in physical relations of a Biblical nature.

 

incorrect prophecies,

Apologists will say all Smiths prophecies were fulfilled or misunderstood. Same as with apologists who claim the Bible has no unfulfilled prophecies.

 

 fruadulent translations of Egyptian facsimiles,

This one is kinda wild. We know that the Book of Abraham does not match the papyri but apologists have multiple explanations why. And the Bible has pseudepigrapha. So the Book of Abraham should be a non-issue compared to the Bible. 

The comparison is Smith to the Bible. Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

the foolish notion that the earth is some 6000 years old, that God had to send an angel with a sword to force him to commit adultery, etc.

Not sure Smith claimed a Angel forced him into committing sin. Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

 

 

A J. Reuben Clark antagonism I have run into a few times on the internet... : r/lds 

https://www.reddit.com/r/lds/comments/qz081e/a_j_reuben_clark_antagonism_i_have_run_into_a_few/

A J. Reuben Clark antagonism I have run into a few times on the internet...

J. Reuben Clark was called as an Apostle and made First President in The Church in 1933.

J. Reuben Clark had served in various government positions, ambassador to Mexico, and was altogether an accomplished individual when he was called to Church leadership in the early 1930s.

The antagonism around Clark is his anti-semitic statements, and his pacifism. Combined with The Church continuing Missionary work in Germany, and Clarks working with German (Nazi) officials to continue Missionary work in Germany until Missionaries were forced to -literally escape Germany/Nazis in 1939. Clark does not look too good in the rear-view mirror. But much of that is explainable, especially in comparison to other religions at the time. Catholics, protestants, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints played along in Germany under Nazi control when in hindsight, the Nazis were -clearly- evil. That in and of itself is an interesting discussion.

One particular antagonism of Clark that I have followed up on is a statement that has been repeated in arguments to me when I have defended or explained the actions of The Church from that time period is this...

"The FBI had secret files which detailed how Nazi agents received the private encouragement of J. Reuben Clark."

It makes it sound almost as if Clark was giving private encouragement or help to hostile foreign nations. It was specific enough that antagonists to The Church had teeth in their criticism, but vague enough and broad enough that it could mean several things.

The source provided by antagonists was Quinn. And Quinn engages in "Quinnspeak" when pressing criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Quinnspeak is Quinn playing fast and loose with truth.

So, I followed-up on the source.

This is the original source, watch how antagonists are lying without actually lying... "It is not surprising that, as of November 1942, US intelligence agents were filling secret reports about Counselor Clark's statements for pacifism and against the war. By January 1943, FBI interrogators also found that pro-Nazis in Utah were claiming his private encouragement." "War and Peace In Our Time" pg. 153.

Clark was a pacifist. I am not a pacifist, so that is hard to defend. But Clark was a pacifist.

And pro-nazi individuals in Utah *claimed* Clarks encouragement. There is no possible way any investigator thought to end the investigation there (in a time of open-war) if the "private encouragement" was anything with any real substance. No way that is where the investigation ended if there was an ounce of substance there. Not in a time of open war. But, per the source, that is where the investigation ended. Pro-Nazi individuals who were residents of Utah *claimed* to have received some sort of encouragement from Clark.

The statement "The FBI had secret files which detailed how Nazi agents received the private encouragement of J. Reuben Clark." Does not match the original source. It is at best a "half truth."

I enjoy the hobby of following-up on sources. I bought Quinns, "Elder Statesman" where Quinn quotes himself (no joke), and engages in hyperbole in times, but it was and is an interesting source on Clark. I also bought, "War and Peace In Our Time" to follow up on Quinns criticism of Clark, and it is an interesting source. Edited by Bushman, who is my spirit animal. Love Bushman

 

Smith did indeed think the Bible was literally true. This is not the case. People need to decide whether they worship a righteous father in heaven or the morally challenged individual described in the Bible. They are not the same. I am sure not the first to notice this.

Having a personal relationship with God is something Smith taught.

LDS Christians teach and believe that believers are to have a personal relationship with God. And to seek God and answers in personal private prayer as a part of worship.

 

It is a mistake to use the Bible as a guide to morality which supersedes our own conscience and rational thought.

Agreed

Doing this led to the witch trials in Salem and in other locations when women were murdered because, after all, the Bible says not to let a witch live.

Navigating the Bible to harm others is a horrendous mistake. And something many denominations do today.

I completely agree with you that polygamy is in the Bible and not condemned there. However, it is never commanded. Neither does it follow that it was a good thing. Much in the Bible, including many things attributed to God are evil.

Never commanded? Eh? Totally false. Polygamy is evil in LDS Christian history and it is evil in the Bible. But, “never commanded” in the Bible? Eh? Polygamy marriage was commanded in the Bible. Levirite marriage was given as a mandate in the Law of Moses.

God -gave- wive-s- plural to prophet, priest, King David.. “And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom” 2 Samuel 12:8

 

 

 

Smith is indeed useless to lead us to Christ because he taught wickedness.

This is pants on head.

Smith taught others to follow and worship Christ.

 

His own actions were also wicked and included defamation of women and adultery with married women.

Its my understanding that Smith only had Biblical relations with women he was sealed to in polygamist marriages. If you have a page number of Rough Stone Rolling, I will give it a look.

Regardless, Christs redemptive power is Biblical and Smith claimed that he sought forgiveness through Christ several times in his life. But if you could provide a Rough Stone Rolling page number, I will give it a look.

Of those who followed Smith, Jesus might well say "why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things I say? I can follow the teachings of Jesus more easily if I don't have to engage in mental gymnastics to call evil good.

Smith told people to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Smith testified that Jesus is real, he was resurrected, and mankind is saved through Christ. Smith told people to follow and worship Jesus Christ.

 

Smith did make loads of false predictions and I gave a clear example of one. Brother Barnes did not live to see Jesus come in the clouds of heaven with the 144000. He died. There is no way to make this dependent on interpretation.

I am telling you the same excuses people give for false prophecies in the Bible are the same kind of reasoning LDS Christian apologists give to Smiths alleged false prophecies. https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml

The Bible contains false prophecies. Smith meets the Biblical definition of “Prophet.”

 

James makes it clear that God does not lie.

The Bible writer in the New Testament book of James makes the claim.

But that sharply contradicts other elements of the Bible that are clear—God lies.

1 Kings 22:19-23, Genesis 2:17, Isaiah 7:1-7 are examples of God lying.

These examples of God lying you cite are also instances which are dependent on interpretation.

From apologists… “These examples of Smith making false prophecies you cite are also instances which are dependent on interpretation.”

Its clear God lied in the Bible.

 

The point of Deuteronomy 18 is that God not lie and so if a claimed prophet tells a lie, discernable from making a prediction that does not happen, then this man is not representing God.

The Bible contradicts the Bible, God lies in the Bible, and false prophecies are made in the Bible.

 

One of the good claims in the Book of Mormon is that God cannot lie in Enos. If the Bible is not as clear as we would like on this issue, the Book of Mormon is very clear.

God cannot lie about Christian forgiveness-- through Christ. Per Enos in the Book of Mormon,

5 And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed. 6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away. 7 And I said: Lord, how is it done? 8 And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen.

 

 If I were you, I would not believe everything you read in Chronicles or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter. Jeremiah was right when he said that the scribes had falsified the records.

It is a tenet of belief in LDS Christianity that the scriptures are imperfect. LDS Christianity does not accept perfect scriptures.

 

I don't think I referred to wicked rituals although that would be a good term for the sealing of a woman married to another man to a church leader in which the church leader gained the approval to have sex with this woman. Holy adultery found in the Mormon church was indeed based on such wicked rituals, but they are certainly magic.

“Holy adultery?” Relations of a Biblical marriage in polygamy would not be adultery. Per the Bible. Where polygamy is authorized.

Magic, wicked. You are purposefully using hyperbolic and loaded language.

 

Salvation comes from records of ordinances performed by suitable authority and saying the right words and engaging in the right rituals.

Records of ordinances? Or the ordinance themselves.

Is Baptism an ordinance…?

Rituals are not necessarily bad if they are used as a method of presentation of an eternal principle which leads men to God and righteousness. The problem we get is when the rituals themselves become the source of salvation as suggested in Section 128.

Baptism being required –an ordinance being required—is Biblical.

Read John 3 in context.

Apologists will say you have to take Smiths prophecies in context, too.

Its clear in the New Testament that baptism is a requirement. A must-do.

 

It is not surprising that Jesus, who was Jewish would participate in such a ritual. Neither is it surprising that his Jewish followers would continue the same. This kind of ritual can be a very good thing as long as one realizes that it is not the source of the gift of God but more a teaching technique which illustrates eternal principles.

LDS Christians will say their Christ-centered religious worship and ritual is focused on Christ worship.

 

 

Smith deceived his wife till 1843 about his numerous holy adulteries.

Who did Smith have physical relations with that he was not “sealed” to in a polygamist relationship?

You have my curiosity piqued.

Of course, according to the Bible, Smiths wife has no say in who he is in polygamist relationships with.

 

I think this was fraud although he also perpetrated a fraud on the membership of the church by constantly denouncing polygamy when he was engaging in it.

God lied. In the Bible. Smith meets the Biblical definition of prophet.

Apologists say that since Smiths life was in danger, it justifies the misrepresentations on polygamy.

 

You are right. The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy but the Bible certainly does not. It only condemns the practice of "multiplying wives" by the king.

Polygamy is normative in the Bible. Polygamy is codified in the Bible.

 

I will just say that the Jesus Smith describes in Section 132 bears no resemblance to the Jesus I read of in the gospels.

Smith uses 132 to testify of Christ… Coming to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ leads to exaltation. D&C 132:21–24

I have a problem with polygamy. In 132. And the Bible. Polygamy is bad. But the Bible justifies it, and Smith meets the Biblical definition of Biblical prophet.

“Section 132 goes against the Bible!” No. Not at all. It testifies of Christ and justifies polygamy. Things the Bible does.

 

Smith is useless as a guide to bring us to Christ.

Smith testifies of Christ. "Christ Himself has assuredly risen from the dead; and if He has risen from the dead, He will, by His power, bring all men to stand before Him." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-3?lang=eng

 

He will take us in the opposite direction.

This is pants on head wrong. Smith was clear: follow Christ.

 

 Smith taught a select few to take additional wives thus violating their marriage vows.

Biblical polygamy was not violating marriage vows.

Biblical marriage includes plural wives and concubines.

Smith taught polygamy, yes. But the House of Israel is a polygamist group.

 

He made this up. He did not get it from Jesus who strengthened the commandment to not commit adultery.

Relations of a physical intimate nature in a polygamist sealing would not be adultery in a Biblical sense.

Polygamy is in the Bible.

 

 

Jesus describes God as our Father in Heaven. Smith's doctrine makes God anything but a father.

This does not make any sense. Smith taught others to follow Christ and testified of God “our Father in Heaven.”

I re-read this multiple times and it gave me a headache.

 

The Book of Mormon does indeed give a good protestant description of Christianity. I do not believe in its historicity, but I think it does a very good job presenting the traditional doctrine of Christ.

Its clear that the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants testifies of Christ more than the Bible. There is no other way around it.

The Bible has error, hyperbole, pseudepigrapha. People still use it as an ethical and moral guide.

 

 

Smith would have made fewer mistakes if he had followed The Book of Mormon rather than foolish proof texts based on the King James Bible.

Smith used the Bible as his ethical and moral guide and critical historians say that Smith taught more from the Bible than the Book of Mormon.

 

As to polygamy, he should have listened to his conscience rather than trying to justify this evil practice from the mythology found in the Bible. There really is good reason to think that Abraham did not even exist. Even if he did exist, there is no good reason to believe mythology about him is a better arbiter of good and evil than our own conscience.

Smith would not have known that Moses was a mythical addition to the Bible. Smith would have thought the Bible was literally true.

 

As to Smith's personal life, if you did what he did, you would be excommunicated and likely put in jail.

Smiths personal life was based in his using the Bible as an ethical and moral guide.

 God does not lie

Not according to the Bible. God lies in the Bible.

Examples of Gods lies in the Bible…

The Lying Spirit (1 Kings 22:19-23): God asks for a spirit to entice King Ahab to go to battle, where he will die. A spirit volunteers to be a "lying spirit" in the mouths of all Ahab’s prophets. God authorizes this, directly resulting in a deception that leads to Ahab's death.

The Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17): God tells Adam that if he eats from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he will die "in that day". Adam eats the fruit but does not die on that day

In Isaiah 7:1-7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies. Yet it did come to pass. His enemies did harm him. as 2 Chronicles 28:1-8 tells us. Why did God lie to the king of Juday?

“God does not lie”—not true. According to the Bible.

 

To totally ignore the fact that Smith made multiple predictions in God's name which did not take place is to ignore what it explicitly says about prophets in the Bible.

There are false prophecies in the Bible. So false prophecies are not a test of a real prophet.

In Isaiah 7:1-7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies. Yet it did come to pass. His enemies did harm him. as 2 Chronicles 28:1-8 tells us.

“One false prophecy, and you have a false prophet.” Not according to the Biblical record.

There are apologists who justify all of Smiths predictions and prophecies.

https://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/false_prophesies.htm

 

However, the way Smith did this also constituted fraud and this is certainly against what Jesus taught.

Smith –like Bible prophets—was a flawed man. Smith repenting is certainly in-line with what Jesus taught. Apologists will disagree that Smith was a fraudster.

Smiths polygamy is not any more ore less wicked than polygamy in the Bible. Its wicked in the Bible and wicked in LDS Christian history.

The standard is the Bible. Morally and ethically, Smith had problems. But using the Bible –a horrific moral and ethical guide—Smith meets the standard of a Biblical pophet.

 

Jacob 2 clearly states that the many wives and concubines of David and Solomon was an abomination. Did anyone other than Abraham ever follow the "law of Sarah" in the Bible? I don't know of any. This was certainly not true of Jacob's 2/4 wives. Section 132 is not really "Biblical" unless you focus attention only on Abraham, who might not even have existed.

That’s what is funny—the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy. The Bible does not.

 

As to false prophecies, sometimes on closer examination, one finds that the thing which is wrong is a particular interpretation of what they said. The problem with Smith isn't just his lack of accuracy in making prediction but with his introduction of wicked practices and reliance on magic rituals. The problem with Smith is his evil fruits and the calling of evil good in order to justify him. I think Isaiah had this one completely right in Chapter 5.

I am going to push-back that LDS Christians engage in wicked rituals. Come on, now.

LDS Christians worship and follow Christ and will say that their religious ritual helps them follow and worship Christ.

 

True prophets come to the people with a message from God.

Yeah, that is what Smith said and did.

 

Part of that message with all the literary prophets beginning with Amos was that God wants righteousness, not just a bunch of rituals.

Is Baptism a ritual…? Even Jesus did baptism in the Bible. And the Bible is clear that baptism is a requirement. According to the Bible writer speaking for Jesus…

John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus said the same thing, including a new commandment to love others. Smith taught the opposite, emphasising magical rituals and authority. His personal life was not worthy of emulation. His fruits were evil and so he should be rejected.

Smith taught people to follow Jesus, and testified of Jesus. LDS Christians will say that their Christ-centered worship and ritual brings them closer to Christ. Ritual? Christ was baptized in the Bible. There is ritual in the Bible.

Smith taught the opposite of Jesus? That is pants on head not correct. Smith testified of Jesus and told people to follow the teachings of Jesus. Smith taught that Jesus was real, he rose from the dead, and told people to worship Jesus.

Smiths personal life is in-line with the Bible. The Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide. “Smith practiced polygamy!” The Bible does not condemn polygamy. Polygamy was normative in the Bible.

Smiths “fruits” (Book of Mormon, D+C, etc) testify of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ more per verse than the Bible. From internet AI… “The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) contains more direct words of Jesus Christ and a higher concentration of first-person testimony regarding His divinity, modern mission, and Atonement per verse than the Bible.” You want Christ? You will find Christ in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2014/12/75-truths-in-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

Christ can help us overcome doubt and fear. D&C 6:34–37

Jesus Christ is the only name whereby we can be saved. D&C 18:23

Jesus Christ lives. D&C 76:22–24

 

On the website https://www.theadventtruth.com/freebiblestudiesaasdfas/the-ten-tests-of-a-prophet

We find, “The Ten Tests of a Prophet.”

This was recently used in a drive-by evangelizing post, “my Jesus is better than your Jesus” type of a post.

So, this is just meant to show that the Bible contradicts the Bible and that Smith technically meets the (not that high of a standard) Biblical definition of prophet.

The Ten Tests of a Prophet

Test 1: Reliable Predictions

If someone claims to be a prophet that makes predictions, their predictions must come to pass in totality. The only exception would be a conditional prophecy. But if someone says something is definitely going to happen, no conditions, then if it doesn’t happen, they are a false prophet.

Jeremiah 28:9 — The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

My answer: Reliable predications -cannot- be the Biblical test of a Biblical prophet.

Jesus made predictions that were not fulfilled. Matthew 24:34. Mark 13:30. 

In Ezekiel chapter 26, the prophecy is made that Tyre will be destroyed and will never be rebuilt. Yet the city of Tyre still exists to this day.

Clearly unfulfilled prophecies are not a Biblical test of a Biblical prophet.

Test 2: Lift up Jesus

A true prophet will lift up Jesus, and not themselves. Many false prophets are all about self with a “look at me” attitude. True prophets will be humble, seeking only to point others to the Lamb of God.

John 16:13 — Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Matthew 7:15-20 — Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

My answer: Smith testified of Jesus. And the Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus more per verse than the Bible. The Doctrine and Covenants testify of Jesus.

“Salvation could not come to the world without the mediation of Jesus Christ.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-3?lang=eng

Test 3: Nothing Secret

False prophets will concoct their prophecies and interpretations in secret. For example, Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon in secret. True prophets will be open and clear about the fact that the doctrine they teach comes from the Bible.

2 Peter 1:19-21 — We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 — All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 2:15 — Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

My answer: Smith taught more from the Bible than he ever did from the Book of Mormon. Ratios more. But “nothing secret” contradicts the Bible.

First—This shows a huge misunderstanding of how the Bible became the Bible. The Bible references books not actually in the Bible.

Second—Smith tried telling anyone and everyone about the Book of Mormon and got it published for everyone.

As for this “no secrets” contradicting the Bible—John 21: 25 “ "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

So there are “secret” things—things we do not know about. In the Bible. From the Bible.

Another verse talking of secret things… John 20:30-31: "Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe..."

The Bible contradicts the Bible. There are verses that talk of secret things in the Bible.

 

 

Test 4: No Sugar Coating

Like Elijah, true prophets point out and rebuke sin in the proper spheres (private where necessary, openly where necessaary, but never where the world can reproach the Gospel).

Micah 3:5-8 — Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him. Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God. But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.

1 Kings 17-19

My answer: Apologists would likely say that Smith didn’t sugar coat his teachings that Smith claimed came from God.

 

Test 5: Warning of Judgments

God gives messages of coming judgments to His prophets, and they, in turn, warn the church and the world of these coming judgments.

Isaiah 24:20 — The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.

My answer: Apologists would likely say that Smith gave Gods judgements.

Test 6: Builders

A true prophet will seek to edify and build up the church, not to tear it down, be it public or private. A surgeon cuts to heal, not to destroy, and never needlessly. 1 Cor. 14:3-4.

1 Corinthians 14:3-5 — But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

My answer: Apologists would likely say that Smith “built” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Test 7: Bible Based

A true prophet will not teach anything contrary to the Bible. Anyone claiming to be a prophet must be willing to be subject to scrutiny based on the Bible.

Isaiah 8:20 — To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1 Corinthians 14:32 — And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

My answer: Smith taught from the Bible. Constantly and consistently. The Bible does not give an age limit for young women to marry. Women are property in the Bible. Slavery is condoned. The Bible is noty that great of an ethical and moral guide. But Smith followed it.

“Smith was a polygamist!” Its in the Bible. The House of Israel is a polygamist group in the Bible. “Smith married young women!” No age limit is given in the Bible.

Smith taught from the Bible. Constantly. He lived by the Bible. The Bible contradicts itself and is not a very good moral and ethical guide. “Polygamy is condemned!” Sure—in the Book of Mormon. It was normative in the Bible.

 

Test 8: Physical Proof

A true prophet going into vision falls down weak, & then is strengthened by God. They also have their eyes wide open the whole time, and they do not breath while in vision.

Numbers 24:4 — He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:

Daniel 10:7-9 — And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. 8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. 9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.

Daniel 10:16-17 — And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength. For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

My answer: Smith had miraculous visions, and created scripture. One of the unique things critical historians note about Smith isn’t necessarily his visions. Its that he is able to include others in his miraculous visions. Even the most critical historians have to account for 20 separate witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Smith did not have visions and miracles himself. He included others in them. Like the Bible.

Test 9: Christlike Fruit

A true prophets life will be morally pure. While being normal humans, they will be kind, respectful, and loving.

Matthew 7:15-20 — Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

James 5:17 — Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

My answer: Smith  meets the Biblical definition of Bible prophet. He had the ethics and morality found in the Bible. Polygamy is normative in the Bible, women are property in the Bible, and the Bible sets no marital age for young women to marry. Smith meets the Biblical definition of Bible prophet. 

He also claimed he repented of sins and was miraculously forgiven. A teaching of Christ.  

 

Test 10: Obedient

A true prophet will often have to bear unpleasant messages. However, they will still be obedient, both to the command to share the message, and to God’s Ten Commandment Law. Deuteronomy 18:18, Isaiah 8:20, Prov. 29:18, Rev. 12:17.

Deuteronomy 18:18 — I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Isaiah 8:20 — To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Proverbs 29:18 — Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

Revelation 12:17 — And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

My answer: Apologists will claim that Smith was obedient to God and fulfilled Gods mission for him as a prophet.