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.