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.