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.