Academic consus? Sorry but BYU studies dont really count
there... everytime BYU studies something there is a heavy mormon bias...
The hard academic consensus is that Latter-day Saint
Christianity is reformation Christianity.
Bible scholar outlines the academic concensus… https://www.tiktok.com/@maklelan/video/7649016944384937247
I'm talking biblical Christian. The biblical definition
of the nature of God, of Christ, sufficiency of the Atonement, historical
definitions of Christianity. All of which ultimately deviate when you add in
the Mormon context.
The Bible is -hard- polytheistic. There is no monotheism in
the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ8_-AWFWMc
The pre-creed beliefs of baptism for the dead,
non-trinitarian belief, and belief in theosis-deification align with LDS
Christianity.
Now general academia is all over the place in terms of
mormons being Christian or not. But those are all the "philosophy of man,
mingled with scripture".
No. The cited academic concensus is that Latter-day Saint
Christianity is a reformation Christian organization.
I’ll challenge you to really study the new ormont.
Because I can share with you that as I have and learned about Christ.. ormon
don’t believe in the biblical Jesus. In fact the pharisee and sadusees were
more in line with the modern day ormon church… and well Matthew 23 anyone?
Thanks for your testimony.
Folloowers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints will often say that they believe in the Biblical Jesus. The
Jesus that taught, “ye are gods.”
So what constitutes adultery?
Biblical polygamy is not
adultery.
Polygamy is not adultery in the Bible.
Smith married women other than his wife.
Smith was sealed to already-married men and women.
Some testified that they had sexual relations with him.
The women who testified under oath in the Temple Lot case
were not married or sealed to anyone else other than Smith at the time of their
marital contact in Biblical polygamy.
Is this adultery?
Polygamy in the Bible is not adultery.
According to available evidence he also had sex with some
women who were married to other men.
Even the most critical of historians admit that not all of
Smiths sealings were in the Biblical marital sense.
Who does Hales say Smith had relations with that was
already-married..?
This is what Joseph of Egypt would not do. I keep coming
back to this: What is your definition of adultery? When we get that understood,
we can begin on what is the definition of bearing false witness.
Polygamy is not adultery in the Bible.
Smith called various women whores and harlots and they were
not.
What page number of Rough Stone Rolling are you referring
to?
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.
There is no prophet in the Bible who had sex with women
married to other men unless you want to include David and he was condemned for
it.
David sent her husband to die and wasn’t married or sealed
to the woman he abused.
It was not a consensual relationship.
Polygamy is not the problem, it is sex with women married
to other men or the other aberrations specifically identified.
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.
You are just noting that the Bible is not univocal as claimed by anyone who studies it.
There are some number who disagree.
I agree with you.
The Bible contradicts the Bible. But—polygamy and concubines were normative in the Bible.
Polygamy and concubines would be part of the definition of “Biblical marriage.”
The thing in the parable of the Ewe lamb where David was given the wives of Saul is nothing more than a part of becoming the king. Whoever had the wives was the king. In any case, it hardly constitutes a commandment.
Polygamy and concubines were practiced by Gods chosen.
The House of Israel was a polygamy-practicing group.
God -gave- King David wives.
Seems like a silly discussion at this point.
That which is a capital offense, sex with mother and daughter, is hardly a technicality.
Christians do not consider Levitical Law to have any standing.
Jacob violated Levitical polygamy law.
Smith did as well? Interesting. Who did Smith have Biblical marital contact with he was not married to in a Biblical polygamy sense…?
Leviticus is convenient because it has lists of things not to do, but many of these things can be found elsewhere also.
Levitical Law has no standing with believing 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."
In Genesis, sex with married women is a "sin against God". Leviticus calls this adultery. Since you are determined to justify Smith from the Bible, what is your definition of adultery which will not include his behavior as claimed by the church?
Who did Smith have Biblical marital relations with he was not married to in a Biblical sense?
Polygamy isn’t sin in the Bible.
I agree that it would have been nice if the N.T. had made some changes, but I think it did. It just did not go far enough. Compare the sermon on the mount with Leviticus, for example. I don't even like Leviticus, but it is part of the Bible. One of the commandments specifically mentioned by Jesus to the young man was to not commit adultery.
You are certain that Smith had Biblical physical relations with a polygamist spouse that Smith was not married to in a Biblical polygamy sense?
Who?
The women Smith had Biblical relations with of a marital nature that historians agree –Smith was husband-wife with that woman--. He was married to all of them.
Smith was sealed to married men and married women. But even the most critical of historians agree that some number of sealings were for “eternity only.”
Section 132 certainly does not align with the Bible. It doesn't even seem to realize that Isaac was monogamous, in so far as the Bible is concerned. Neither is there any support at all for the claim that God ever commanded polygamy anywhere in the Bible. Abraham's polygamy was a social custom of the time and it was not God's idea. It was Sarah's.
132 aligns with the Bible in that women have no choice in marriage in the Bible.
And polygamy and concubines was normative in the Bible in the House of Israel.
When we discuss things like this, it is important to have shared definitions. What is your definition of adultery, one of the “thou shalt nots”? Do you have one? Mine is what I was taught from my parents and the church. It agrees with the usage of the word in the Bible, including in Leviticus. I do not believe the Bible justifies his behavior which is claimed by the church. Every Catholic and protestant minister would agree with me.
Polygamy is not “adultery” in the Bible.
Gods righteous chosen practice it in the Bible.
You are just noting that the Bible is not univocal as claimed by anyone who
studies it.
There are some number who disagree.
I agree with you.
The Bible contradicts the Bible. But—polygamy and concubines
were normative in the Bible.
Polygamy and concubines would be part of the definition of
“Biblical marriage.”
The thing in the parable of the Ewe lamb where David was
given the wives of Saul is nothing more than a part of becoming the king.
Whoever had the wives was the king. In any case, it hardly constitutes a
commandment.
Polygamy and concubines were practiced by Gods chosen.
The House of Israel was a polygamy-practicing group.
God -gave- King David wives.
Seems like a silly discussion at this point.
That which is a capital offense, sex with mother and
daughter, is hardly a technicality.
Christians do not consider Levitical Law to have any
standing.
Jacob violated Levitical polygamy law.
Smith did as well? Interesting. Who did Smith have Biblical
marital contact with he was not married to in a Biblical polygamy sense…?
Leviticus is convenient because it has lists of things
not to do, but many of these things can be found elsewhere also.
Levitical Law has no standing with believing 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."
In Genesis, sex
with married women is a "sin against God". Leviticus calls this
adultery. Since you are determined to justify Smith from the Bible, what is
your definition of adultery which will not include his behavior as claimed by
the church?
Who did Smith have Biblical marital relations with he was
not married to in a Biblical sense?
Polygamy isn’t sin in the Bible.
I agree that it would have been nice if the N.T. had made
some changes, but I think it did. It just did not go far enough. Compare the
sermon on the mount with Leviticus, for example. I don't even like Leviticus,
but it is part of the Bible. One of the commandments specifically mentioned by
Jesus to the young man was to not commit adultery.
You are certain that Smith had Biblical physical relations
with a polygamist spouse that Smith was not married to in a Biblical polygamy
sense?
Who?
The women Smith had Biblical relations with of a marital
nature that historians agree –Smith was husband-wife with that woman--. He was
married to all of them.
Smith was sealed to married men and married women. But even
the most critical of historians agree that some number of sealings were for
“eternity only.”
Section 132 certainly does not align with the Bible. It
doesn't even seem to realize that Isaac was monogamous, in so far as the Bible
is concerned. Neither is there any support at all for the claim that God ever
commanded polygamy anywhere in the Bible. Abraham's polygamy was a social
custom of the time and it was not God's idea. It was Sarah's.
132 aligns with the Bible in that women have no choice in
marriage in the Bible.
And polygamy and concubines was normative in the Bible in
the House of Israel.
When we discuss things like this, it is important to have
shared definitions. What is your definition of adultery, one of the “thou shalt
nots”? Do you have one? Mine is what I was taught from my parents and the
church. It agrees with the usage of the word in the Bible, including in
Leviticus. I do not believe the Bible justifies his behavior which is claimed
by the church. Every Catholic and protestant minister would agree with me.
Polygamy is not
“adultery” in the Bible.
Gods righteous chosen practice it in the Bible.
He didn't say which thing was misquoted or taken out of
context, but at the time, there was only one quote that everyone was talking
about, and it was the one referenced above. That's what gets lost over time,
the context of the moment. The general understanding we had was that Hinkley
had outfoxed the interviewer by using carefully chosen words to avoid talking
about something sacred. He lied, but it was an acceptable lie, in the same way
that Joseph Smith used to lie to protect doctrines not ready for the public to
hear.
I would be careful throwing around liar liar pants on fire.
It is clear that the Church does not teach or emphasize the
origin of God, “God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same
as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”
Not a lot is known about that.
But the Church does teach deification/theosis.
He lied in two ways: 1) He gave the impression that he
was misquoted in this one instance, by vaguely referencing misquotes in
another. He was not misquoted. We have him on film. 2) He mislead the
interviewer and the public away from the truth of the question that was very
clearly asked.
The Church does not teach much about Gods origin or how God
lived like Jesus did.
But the Church does teach deification/theosis.
I don’t think anyone was misled. Hinkley clearly and openly
taught deification/theosis—https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/11/dont-drop-the-ball?lang=eng
If you have a transcript or something, lets both take a
look.
The church at the time felt it was justified lying, and
that it existed in a gray area, but it was a lie nonetheless. It was the reason
behind the congregation’s laughter. They knew, and they were in on the joke.
Yeah, I don’t think I can agree with you here. I think there
is some level of reaching on your part here.
Hinkley clearly and openly taught deification/theosis (man
my become a god) from the pulpit. Link above.
He just did not understand or teach the origin of God.
In the field of Latter Day Saint history and topics and
discussion of the Latter Day Saints generally-- total honesty and total
integrity is paramount.
Latter-day Saint apologists and leaders get accused of
whitewashing or ignoring troubling facts and history.
In the realm of Latter Day Saint history
Bushman
Vogel
Hales
Quinn
Mason
Park
Are all respected for their sticking to the truth in their
academically accepted and academically published works. Todd Compton talks of
putting “truth first” and not having an agenda and criticizes the Tanners for
not fairly holding their own beliefs to the same standard as they hold Latter-day
Saint Christians.
“Put truth first.” That is what Todd Compton teaches. That
is what he lives by. And its why we trust Bushman, Mason, Hales, Vogel,
McBride, Park, Quinn, Ulrich—and to a certain extent apologists and Queen
Grenfell and Dehlin have to put truth first.
Latter-day Saint Christians and apologists who defend the
Church—need to put truth first.
And critics need to put truth first. I have recently found
posts critical of Latter-day Saints and the institutional Church that are rage
bait and likely AI generated—and include false statements not backed up by
facts.
In a recent post, a critic complained about the Church and
used the SEC Order against the Church to try to make a point. That’s not what
was wrong. The poster claimed that the SEC Order included statement that were
highly critical of the Church and its motives—the rage bait part—the “” quoted
statements were not part of the SEC Order.
Was the LDS Church innocent of disclosure failures and
misstated filings? No. Certainly not. Did the “”quotations from the OP match
what was actually in the SEC order? No. The SEC Order is damning in proving the
Latter-day Saint Christians engaged in disclosure failures and misstated
filings. But the OPs point went past truth into hyperbole, false statements,
and imagination.
If an Latter-day Saint Christian apologist makes a claim.
Check the source. Ask for receipts. The same stands for claims made by critics.
And everyone –everyone—involved in learning more about the Latter Day Saint
Christian movement and the Latter-day Saint Church can demand sources. Look at
the sources.
And AI bots are programmed to create clicks and create rage
bait.
And there is plenty to criticize about the Latter Day Saint
movement and Latter-day Saint Christianity. Plenty. Putting truth first and
asking for sources –and checking sources—should be important to everyone
involved.
Like trusted top-shelf historian Todd Compton says, “put
truth first.” Regardless of motivations. Everyone has bias. Regardless of
bias—faithful, ex, never, whoever—always put truth first.
Calling my statement a hyperbole is completely false. The
official record proves exactly what I said:
Here is exactly what you said. And it is not in the official
record. “"The lawyers absolutely told them that it was bad, but they
continued anyway and tried to frame it on the lawyers."
The lawyers did not –“absolutely”- say it was bad.
First, Paragraph 15 of the SEC order explicitly
states that outside legal counsel reviewed the setup and concluded it
"carried the greatest risk" of non-compliance. The Church's
own Internal Audit Department also flagged it as a problem multiple
times over the years. That isn't a casual 'maybe'—that is a direct legal and
internal warning that the structure was risky.
There is nothing in paragraph 15 that makes that point, and
“carried the greatest risk” is not in the SEC order.
“Outside legal counsel” is also not in the SEC order.
I am pretty sure you are just making things up now.
And I used the exact quote—“might.”
Its easy to find in the SEC order… “32. The Church and
Ensign Peak continued to take the same approach to filing Forms 13F through the
Clone LLCs despite two Church Audit Department (“CAD”) internal audits of
Ensign Peak – one in 2014 and one in 2017—that reviewed the LLC Structure. In
discussions with Ensign Peak’s senior management, although CAD did not
recommend specific changes to the LLC Structure, CAD highlighted the risk that
the SEC might disagree with the approach.”
Here is paragraph 15, for anyone following along, the OP is
just making stuff up…
15. In 2015, Ensign Peak became aware that a third party
appeared to have connected the holdings of various LLCs back to Ensign Peak.
Ensign Peak brought this issue to the attention of the Church. The senior
leadership of the Church approved Ensign Peak’s recommendation to “gradually
and carefully adapt Ensign Peak’s corporate structure to strengthen the
portfolio’s confidentiality.”
Second, the managing director's March 2001 memo to the
First Presidency, quoted in Paragraph 16, openly stated they were
"flying under the radar" and that complying with the law would
make the assets public. They chose to ignore the warnings and keep the shadow
companies running anyway.
“Flying under the radar.” Or “radar” is not in the SEC
order.
Here is paragraph 16 for anyone following along…
16. On November 6, 2015, the senior leadership of the Church
approved Ensign Peak’s plan for the creation of additional Clone LLCs to
further prevent disclosure of the Church’s holdings managed by Ensign Peak.
Ensign Peak formed six additional Clone LLCs, bringing the total to twelve.
Third, when they finally got caught, the Church's
official February 2023 press release explicitly stated: "We believe the
reporting method we used was designed based on the advice of legal
counsel."
They are likely telling the truth.
They are a US religion and thought they had religious
liberties guaranteed in the First Amendment.
They thought they had a right to privacy.
They were explicitly warned by legal and internal experts
that it was a high risk, they chose to continue anyway to stay ‘under the
radar,’ and when the SEC penalized them, they publicly pointed the finger at
the advice of legal counsel. Stating those exact facts from the public record
is not hyperbole
“High risk” and “under the radar” are not words found in the
SEC order.
Check for yourself… 34-96951.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf
I am pretty sure we are getting gamed by an AI bot here. Or
someone just copying and pasting.
Sure Yes this takes faith, but the accuracy of what was
written we have proof of and does not take faith.
Yes, it takes faith to accept the words of the Bible.
Again, believing this is true takes faith, but whether
the story was passed down and translated accurately we have proof that our was.
Like, do you think someone had a recorder of Christ and
recorded every word word for word, and could double check and verify His words?
Like—do you accept that what Jesus said was written down
---after—His death and resurrection? Sometimes decades later. In some cases
like 100 years later…?
But we jane proof that it was not translated from the
scroll like Joseph Smith claimed. You can have faith that it was a revelation
and is true, but it is foolish to say you have faith it
was"translated" accurately from the scroll is ignoring the churches
own proof that it was not.
You are engaging in hyperbole in what the LDS Church claims
about the Pearl of Great Price. LDS Christianity claims it is scripture.
Please name the author (by name) of 1 & 2 Timothy,
Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. Here is a hint—its ---not---
Paul.
Lets take a look at the definition of yours, then. You have
my curiosity piqued.
LDS Chrisitan leaders are disciples of Christ, but not
Prophets. Interesting perspective.
I don't consider a six figure income high, $150,000
household is just in the middle of middle class in most of the United States
now. You're not poor, but not wealthy either.
LDS Church leaders would be upper middle class on their pay.
Not upper class.
Of you are just talking about the spend then maybe some of
the top school officials are.
There might be a language barrier here.
BYUs athletic coaches, many of which are not-LDS Christian
are the highest paid in the LDS Church.
I'm not sure why that matters to this conversation. If
you add in the housing, travel, utilities, car, gifts, food. And anything else
that cost money being expensed, i don't there are any.
Jordan School District in Utah pays for the travel for its
employees. And provided benefits and retirement packages.
That is not uncommon.
I also homecoming my kids for 26 years, never used public
education.
You meant, “homeschooled.”
Plenty of LDS Christians homeschool their kids as well. We
did. Our daughter graduated with an Associates degree and most of a Bachelors
when most of her friends were graduating High School.
She only had to attend one year additional to get her
Bachelors degree.
They are all doing very well
That is good. Some “homeschool” kids think that Adam and Eve
walked with dinosaurs.
with college degree from UNLV, a legit university as
opposed to BYU which is an outreach of the church.
BYU is ranked #110 overall for American Colleges.
UNLV is ranked #232 overall.
Based on those rankings, BYU is higher. UNLV has a strong
“Hospitality Business” program, but its B program is still ranked lower than
BYU. Which is ironic. Especially given your post.
Why do they get anything at all and why are they export
from tithing?
Good question.
They are all wealthy before they are"called" to
be leaders. It seems these are the ones who should tithe as opposed to the
mothers on welfare that can't offord food.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a
massive welfare program.
The welfare program for LDS Christianity is so immense that
it sustains many other religions welfare arms as well.
As for prophets, there is not astandard in the Bible,
only tests if they are true and all the LDS "prophets" fail, starting
with Joseph Smith. But then they try to say it doesn't apply to them. Lol.
If the standard for a “prophet” is to testify and prophesy
of Christ—Smith meets that Biblical standard.
Smith had sex with Lyon's wife. We know this because she
told her daughter that her father was Smith.
Lyons?
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.
You are repeating a second hand story that is contradicted
by solid historical evidence. Sure, and DNA evidence, too.
Was this adultery?
You went from this… “Smith married women other than his
wife. Some testified that they had sexual relations with him.”
To this, “was this adultery?”
Don’t let the cognitive gymnastics pull a muscle.
No first hand source “testified” that Smith had marital relations
of a Biblical nature with Lyons.
To be clear—marital contact between marital partners in
polygamy was not considered a sin in the Bible.
Joseph of Egypt called this a sin against God. Is this so
if he had slept with Potiphar's wife but not so if Joseph Smith does the same
thing?
You are engaging in cognitive gymnastics and casting false aspersions.
Relations of a Biblical nature in polygamist marriage in the
Bible was not a sin.
I am not speaking of a man having more than one wife.
If you are speaking of Smith and his practice of polygamy,
you are speaking of a man having more than one wife.
I am considering sex with a married woman. Is this
adultery or not?
Smiths marital contact with his polygamist wives would not
be a sin-- according to the Bible.
The Bible denounces this in both the Old and New
Testaments.
The Bible supports polygamy. And concubines.
I am not claiming that polygamy is not Biblical.
Polygamy is Biblical
I am claiming that
adultery is not Biblical.
This includes sex with women married to other men.
Smiths marital contact with his polygamist wives in polygamist
marriage-- would not be considered a sin-- according to the Bible.
So, what is your definition of adultery?
Marital contact between spouses in polygamist marriage in
the Bible was not considered a sin.
You just proved my point. You dismissed BYU studies for
Mormon bias then cited Dan McClellan as your source. Not exactly impartial...
He's an active LDS member who worked as the church's own scripture translation
supervisor. That's literally a church employee. Try again.
BYU is as much an academic source as IU and Baylor. Baylor
is a Church school (Baptist), just like BYU.
BYUs academic papers are peer-reviewed and academic. As much
as any other College.
And I did not dismiss them. You are engaging in hyperbole
with that false aspersion. BYUs academic papers follow high standards, and are
peer-reviewed.
I simply quoted the academic consensus.
Dan McClellan is a trusted source on the academic consensus.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/DIyoR6Ce29
The actual academic consensus — Jan Shipps, Indiana
University-Purdue, University of Illinois Press — said LDS departed from
Christianity the same way Christianity departed from Judaism. Rodney Stark at
Baylor called it a new world religion. Not reformation Christianity. Your own
argument doesn't hold up against the mainstream Christiananity definition.
You did not cite the “academic consensus.” And Baylor is a
Church school affiliated with the Baptist Convention of Texas.
Harvard Univesity repeating the academic consensus that LDS
Christianity is restorationist Christianity…
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the
largest denomination in the broader Latter Day Saint (sometimes called Mormon
or LDS) movement, a restorationist Christian movement that sprang from the
prophetic claims of Joseph Smith (1805-44) and coincided with the Second Great
Awakening in the United States. “
Latter Day Saints
Movement | The Pluralism Project
https://pluralism.org/latter-day-saints-movement
None of your sources actually answer: D&C 130:22 —
God has a physical body. John 4:24 — God is spirit.
The Bible contradicts the Bible
Isiah, Jacob, and Job claimed in the Bible to have seen God.
Moses spoke “face to face” with God.
King Follett — God was once a man. Psalm 90:2 — from
everlasting to everlasting you are God.
The hard polythestic Bible contradicts itself often. And..
King Follett claims, “God himself, the Father of us all,
dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it
from the Bible.”
Follett also claims, “everlasting.” You could have also
quoted Doctrine and Covenants 61:1:
"Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from
everlasting to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end
2 Nephi 25:23 — grace after all you can do. Ephesians
2:8-9 — not of works.
A reader in the 1800s would have understood, “after all
you can do” to mean, “in spite of what you can do.”
Latter-day Saint Christians accept, “grace for grace.”
D&C 132 — eternal marriage required for exaltation.
Matthew 22:30 — no marriage in the resurrection.
Yet, my believing Christian coworker has a “families are
forever” mug they bought at a Christian bookstore.
You don’t believe in marriage in Heaven. Try convincing
Christians.
LDS are not unique in believing in families in the afterlife
in Gods presence.
The Bible also claims
Different God. Different Jesus. Different gospel. This is
why so many site Galatians 1:8.
The Bible contradicts the Bible.
The creation, fall, and redemption through Christ narrative—and
being saved only through Christ is taught more per verse in the Book of Mormon
and Doctrine and Covenants than the Bible.
Latter-day Saints teach a “different Jesus.” Fundamentalist
Christians teach a “different Jesus” than what is found in the Bible. Honestly.
This goes to show when you stick to church approved
sources you'll miss actual information.
Casting false aspersions. Painting with a broad (false)
brush.
You come on here and argue with people I'm sure you label
as "lazy learners" but many of us were once like you. Hard defenders
of the church.
Casting false aspersions.
Did you go from believing Latter-day Saint Christian to a
Christian who cites Galations 1:8 against Latter-day Saints? Do you think the
Bible is perfect and without error?
Everyone believed that Josephine was Smith's daughter
until DNA proved otherwise.
Everyone?
We know now more than we knew a year ago about history. That
is how history works. More information comes forward—we know more.
We know more now what was meant. We know now that Smith was
not the father, if there was a question before.
What is weird—you know the truth (Smith isn’t the father)
but you want to spin it that he is or something.
This is a weird position for you to take.
All these people believed it and identified her as his
daughter for years and you come along and say that a mother's statement to her
daughter is not first hand.
I made a truthful statement.
The statement from the daughter was at best a second-hand
statement.
Well, yes, this is so.
Yes, I am telling the truth.
This is long settled. You quoted a second hand source and
However, you might want to listen to what Vogel has to
say about it.
Even Vogel admits that not all of Smiths sealings were in
the Biblical marital sense.
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.
Hales thought she was Smith's daughter for years. He
assumed it was a case of the new marriage with Smith superseding the marriage
with Lyon. In any case, the timing of the marriage receives a detailed
discussion by Vogel using first hand testimony of women who had polygamously
married Smith.
Hales is clear that marital relations of a Biblical nature
with Lyon is unlikely.
A trusted historical source… Brian
C. Hales reviews Joseph's sealing to Sylvia Sessions. Concludes they were
sealed in late 1842–early 1843 and most likely did not have sexual relations. |
B. H. Roberts
Vogel admits that not all of Smiths sealings were of a
Biblical marital nature.
When I speak of Smith and his polygamous wives, some of
these involved wives having two husbands. This is unheard of in the Bible.
It is not settled that Smith had Bilical marital relations
with any of the married men or women.
Your source is not a historically settled first-hand account
that Smith had Biblical marital relations with any of the married men or women.
Smith was a polygamist.
Smith had relations with some of the women who were his
wives.
Married women? Not Lyons, a trusted historical source, “Concludes
they were sealed in late 1842–early 1843 and most likely did not have sexual
relations.”
You have still not given me a definition of adultery.
I am not sure what you are accusing Smith of doing is
accurate or honest. Given the historical record.
Did Smith have relations with women that would meet the -Biblical-
definition of “adultery?”
You are struggling to provide a settled name of a woman
under-oath claiming she had relations with Smith of a intimate nature—who was
not Smiths wife in a Biblical polygamy sense.
You say things like "Marital contact between spouses
in polygamist marriage in the Bible was not considered a sin."
That is a true statement.
I completely agree.
Because its true.
However, I will again ask you a question. When Smith had
sexual relations with the Partridge sisters as at least one testified secretly,
deceiving his wife, is this adultery?
When did wives (or women in general) have a choice in who
their husbands married in the Bible.
You are trying to hold Smith to a different standard than
the Bible.
Jacob married sisters in the Bible. Smith married sisters?
He had intimate relations with his polygamist wives? That’s all Biblical.
Smiths wife did not approve? That’s Biblical. Women don’t
have a voice or choice—women are property in the Bible.
Smith had physical intimate relations in polygamy with his
wives? That does not meet the Biblical standard for sin.
I could have sworn
that it was, based on what the church and my parents taught me. It doesn't even
conform to Section 132.
The sad thing is that if the wife does not approve in 132—the
man can go ahead anyway.
132 conforms to the Bible—women have no choice or say in the
Bible—women are property in the Bible.
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.
If you won't believe Smith destroyed families by adding
married women to his host of wives and concubines, you will not be able to
argue that Brigham Young did not do this.
You are moving the goalposts from Smith to Young.
What is your other posting name…?
The Bible does not justify what they did in their
practice of polygamy.
Adding Young is a red herring.
And you will have difficulty pointing to any women Smith (or
Young) had relations with of a marital nature—who was not also a wife in the
Biblical polygamy sense.
Adultery is not biblical.
Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.
So it hinges on how you define adultery. What is your
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.
I don't need a statement about polygamy. Adultery can
take place with polygamy and without it.
The women we have first hand accounts saying, “I was
intimate with Smith”—were his wives in the Biblcial polygamy sense.
You first claimed you had sworn testimony.
Where is it?
Evidence indicates that Smith practiced adultery in both
contexts.
No. No first hand sworn evidence indicates what claim you
are making.
You are engaging in hyperbole.
Neither does the Bible justify bearing false witness as
Smith did with women who revealed his marital adventures.
You have already been called out on that false claim…
Ok, I showed you the source on that already. No one believes
it actually happened.
Now… Show me a published, academically-accepted
historian who accepts this as factual. The onus is on you here.
The Bible is of course faulty, but it is not as faulty as
to condone the wickedness of Smith and later Brigham Young.
Young is a red herring.
And you won’t provide a name of any woman who claims to have
had relations of a marital nature with Smith or Young who was not a wife in a
Biblical polygamy sense.
Young’s adulteries are better attested than Smith’s.
Young was the one who added Section 132 to the canon. There was no vote by the
church.
You are engaging in open hyperbole here. No published
historian –even Vogel—will claim you are telling the truth here about 132
coming from Young. It came from Smith.
Smith created 132. Even Vogel admits this.
