Church: Mormon Founder Joseph Smith Wed 40 Wives, One As Young As 14

[bbbbbbb]

Your example of getting paid for work is not so obvious as you describe. It is obvious to you because you have a preconceived context that the readers may not have. "Today I will go to work and get paid, instead of working at home and receive no income." There are multiple variations one can derive from language.

Ambiguities can surface anywhere, but lessens the chance when one knows the application or context. Presumptions can be present as the apostles speak to the people, that the people know things that we today are not privy to. Many parts of scripture are lost to help us know more of what we do not know. To split hairs about "and" instead of "after which", and then declare only one possible derivative, and placing your salvation on that type of understanding from an imperfect document about salvation places way too much confidence in man's capacity. God would not have it that way, because He warned us of so many types of deceivers who could and would thrive on that weakest link. You assume the apostles were language experts and never made mistakes in communications. When a person learns the art of learning by the Spirit, such errors are compensated. Salvation then can be communicated correctly.

Paul's message was not a lesson on the apostasy, or the man of sin. It was on the coming of Christ. For sure there was to be an apostasy first. For sure the man of sin would be revealed first. I have no certainty if has happened, or if it is yet to come. I said previously: "I do not see specifics that one will occur before the other, or that they must occur concurrently." Since I do not know of the man of sin being revealed, I must assume it is yet to come. The history of popes is a potential, but without certainty, I will not condemn such. Perhaps such knowledge is only obtained spiritually, I cannot rule that out since I have much to learn and grow before I may have that understanding.

But that the apostasy has happened is clear. If it has not, then Martin Luther is nothing short of an apostate, as would be those that spawned from the Reformation, or the birth of Protestantism.

Why would Luther's position change in the slightest if what you assert is true? If, as your denomination believes, the Great Apostasy began after the death of the last Apostle and continued until ca. 1830, then Luther was merely another apostate in a very long line of apostates. If the Great Apostasy has not yet happened, then he is no more or less apostate than any other orthodox Christian. To sustain your assertion, Luther must have marked the beginning of the Great Apostasy if the Great Apostasy had not already occurred.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians because some were upsetting their faith, telling them that the resurrection had already taken place and that Christ had returned. Paul enumerates which this has not yet happened, listing among other reasons that this will not happen until the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition is revealed.

Paul condemns men such as Mr. Smith, who assert these things have already happened.

 

[MormonFriend]

Why would Luther's position change in the slightest if what you assert is true? If, as your denomination believes, the Great Apostasy began after the death of the last Apostle and continued until ca. 1830, then Luther was merely another apostate in a very long line of apostates. ...

Luther was not an apostate. He was a victim of apostasy. I feel certain that he had a genuine humility and wanted to serve God. He did the very best possible with what he had to work with. I am confident that God inspired and directed his efforts. Many truths were lost or distorted, and no fault of his own, he did not see them all and held on to many beliefs that were false. That is no crime or sin. We are all on a learning curve. God reveals truth line upon line and precept upon precept to any and all of us. I am sure God was turning things around, but it could not happen overnight. Evil had such a tight grip, that the grip had to be weakened before the serious changes could take effect.

... If the Great Apostasy has not yet happened, then he is no more or less apostate than any other orthodox Christian. To sustain your assertion, Luther must have marked the beginning of the Great Apostasy if the Great Apostasy had not already occurred.

If there was no termination of the genuine Church (organization) that Jesus established, there was no apostasy, even if followers apostatize from it. Luther's departure from the Church of Rome did not terminate the Church. If that was the genuine Church that Jesus established, it still exists and there would be no apostasy.

But if the apostasy had indeed occurred, and the Church that Jesus established was not on the earth, Luther did not apostatize, because he did not leave the Church of Jesus Christ. He was no longer being a victim of apostasy, and doing his best to put the pieces back together with what little he had. It is very well illustrated and discussed in this 3 part video documentary. BYUtv - Fires Of Faith

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians because some were upsetting their faith, telling them that the resurrection had already taken place and that Christ had returned. Paul enumerates which this has not yet happened, listing among other reasons that this will not happen until the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition is revealed.

Paul condemns men such as Mr. Smith, who assert these things have already happened.

Paul condemns because after 1800 years you think these things could not have happened? Your usage of "already" seems out of context with 1800 years.

 

[drstevej]

Luther was not an apostate. He was a victim of apostasy. I feel certain that he had a genuine humility and wanted to serve God. He did the very best possible with what he had to work with. I am confident that God inspired and directed his efforts. Many truths were lost or distorted, and no fault of his own, he did not see them all and held on to many beliefs that were false.

I did my doctorate in Reformation History. You are making statements with ZERO documentation except that it fits your Joe-made Mormonism. CTR not the propaganda. (Brigham Young University TV is not an objective source).

How much of Luther's writings have you read? How many pages of his writings? More than 5 ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Luther was not an apostate. He was a victim of apostasy. I feel certain that he had a genuine humility and wanted to serve God. He did the very best possible with what he had to work with. I am confident that God inspired and directed his efforts. Many truths were lost or distorted, and no fault of his own, he did not see them all and held on to many beliefs that were false. That is no crime or sin. We are all on a learning curve. God reveals truth line upon line and precept upon precept to any and all of us. I am sure God was turning things around, but it could not happen overnight. Evil had such a tight grip, that the grip had to be weakened before the serious changes could take effect.

If there was no termination of the genuine Church (organization) that Jesus established, there was no apostasy, even if followers apostatize from it. Luther's departure from the Church of Rome did not terminate the Church. If that was the genuine Church that Jesus established, it still exists and there would be no apostasy.

But if the apostasy had indeed occurred, and the Church that Jesus established was not on the earth, Luther did not apostatize, because he did not leave the Church of Jesus Christ. He was no longer being a victim of apostasy, and doing his best to put the pieces back together with what little he had. It is very well illustrated and discussed in this 3 part video documentary. BYUtv - Fires Of Faith

Paul condemns because after 1800 years you think these things could not have happened? Your usage of "already" seems out of context with 1800 years.

I will let you address Dr.SteveJ's post. I have yet to receive convincing proof that Jesus Christ came to establish a religious bureacracy known as the Church and that this organization ever existed and, if it did, where are the physical artifacts of its existence?

 

[RevelationTestament]

Paul condemns men such as Mr. Smith, who assert these things have already happened.

LOL

 

[MormonFriend]

I will let you address Dr.SteveJ's post.

Would you have any idea how painful it is to have someone lambaste your faith and people that you love with vitriolic responses? I have no desire to talk about a gospel of love with anyone who shows me no understanding of love with hateful posts. Some people place confidence on their scholarly status but never give credence to learning and gaining understandings by the methods that scripture illustrates as the means to do so. Without that balance, I cannot trust their conclusions. This is a Christian Forum. It should be filled with comments of love.

I have yet to receive convincing proof that Jesus Christ came to establish a religious bureacracy known as the Church and that this organization ever existed and, if it did, where are the physical artifacts of its existence?

Jesus called and commissioned his disciples to spread the gospel to all of the earth. They were not elected by the people, they were named officials by Jesus. That would be a religious bureaucracy, if such a thing exists.

Matt 28:19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

That is a humongous task to ask of anyone! How would you have done it? Would it require organization? It would be impossible without divine direction, and Jesus did say " I am with you alway", to His apostles. They organized what is known as the Church, devoted to teach the principles of salvation and to baptize all who would receive the Savior. They established Churches in many locations. I am sure (can you doubt?) that the Spirit directed the apostles to do this.

Many people protest, saying that a building is contrary to having a real church. Well, the people must meet somewhere. It doesn't matter where. It depends on the size and circumstances of the congregation. In Argentina, as a missionary, we had some very poor looking rented halls in many cities. Today, 40 years later, there are two Stake Centers in one of those cities, which would mean 4 to 6 chapels built for the purpose of organizing the efforts that Jesus commanded to teach all nations. As the organization of preaching the gospel grows, the circumstances of many enable the building of meeting places. Probably the most economical means to meet regularly and not only worship together, but to continue to organize and work together to continue fulfilling the mandate of Christ to spread the gospel throughout the world.

I do not understand the need to have physical artifacts, or physical anythings, before I can believe the things that are spiritually understood. I have no idea what artifacts might be left by the early Saints, who met under humble circumstances and had very little. We have the writings of the apostles and other epistles that are written to the Churches.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have no desire to talk about a gospel of love with someone who shows no understanding of love by the way of his vitriolic communications. He places way too much confidence on his scholarly status but never gives credence to learning and gaining understandings by the methods that scripture illustrates as the means to do so.

Jesus called and commissioned his disciples to spread the gospel to all of the earth. They were not elected by the people, they were named officials by Jesus. That would be a religious bureaucracy, if such a thing exists.

That is a humongous task to ask of anyone! How would you have done it? Would it require organization? It would be impossible without divine direction, and Jesus did say " I am with you alway", to His apostles. They organized what is known as the Church, devoted to teach the principles of salvation and to baptize all who would receive the Savior. They established Churches in many locations. I am sure (can you doubt?) that the Spirit directed the apostles to do this.

Many people protest, saying that a building is contrary to having a real church. Well, the people must meet somewhere. It doesn't matter where. It depends on the size and circumstances of the congregation. In Argentina, as a missionary, we had some very poor looking rented halls in many cities. Today, 40 years later, there are two Stake Centers in one of those cities, which would mean 4 to 6 chapels built for the purpose of organizing the efforts that Jesus commanded to teach all nations. As the organization of preaching the gospel grows, the circumstances of many enable the building of meeting places. Probably the most economical means to meet regularly and not only worship together, but to continue to organize and work together to continue fulfilling the mandate of Christ to spread the gospel throughout the world.

I do not understand the need to have physical artifacts, or physical anythings, before I can believe the things that are spiritually understood. I have no idea what artifacts might be left by the early Saints, who met under humble circumstances and had very little. We have the writings of the apostles and other epistles that are written to the Churches.

All of this, of course, is quite reasonable. What I meant by a religious bureaucracy goes far beyond gathering a group of believers together to form a church. It goes to a point where there is a director of the operation overseeing a set of administrators who oversee a much larger set of administrators (as in the Catholic system of the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests). It is a well-oiled machine which exercises great power and, consequently, has great wealth. I doubt very much that Jesus had anything of the sort in mind when He commissioned the apostles. Note that He never commissioned anyone to construct Mormon temples or to administer any ordinances in said temples.

A bureaucracy runs most efficiently with clear lines of communication and authority. Inevitably, these leave physical traces. We have, for example, multiple clay tablets from ancient civilizations which were created by bureaucrats for the everyday administration of the government. Likewise, all large religious bureaucracies leave plenty of documents in one form or another in the wake of their administration. We do not see anything of the sort in the first few centuries of Christian history.

 

[MormonFriend]

All of this, of course, is quite reasonable. What I meant by a religious bureaucracy goes far beyond gathering a group of believers together to form a church. It goes to a point where there is a director of the operation overseeing a set of administrators who oversee a much larger set of administrators (as in the Catholic system of the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests). It is a well-oiled machine which exercises great power and, consequently, has great wealth. I doubt very much that Jesus had anything of the sort in mind when He commissioned the apostles.

How could you possibly say that when Ephesians 4 pretty much outlines this "well oiled machine"! Jesus spent months with His disciples, teaching and training them. Do you think every word was recorded? Scriptures are the highlights, not the whole trains manual.

After the apostasy, the organization became worldly and performed as such.

Note that He never commissioned anyone to construct Mormon temples or to administer any ordinances in said temples.

. Never had the chance back then. Doesn't mean it was not on the " to do" list!

A bureaucracy runs most efficiently with clear lines of communication and authority. Inevitably, these leave physical traces. We have, for example, multiple clay tablets from ancient civilizations which were created by bureaucrats for the everyday administration of the government. Likewise, all large religious bureaucracies leave plenty of documents in one form or another in the wake of their administration. We do not see anything of the sort in the first few centuries of Christian history.

. We have epistles written to the Churches all over. I don't know how big they became, or how well organized before they apostasy. Many of the epistles were indicative of major problems, and trying to iron them out. The Church was in its infancy stage and vulnerable.

 

[drstevej]

Never had the chance back then. Doesn't mean it was not on the " to do" list!

How do you know this? Were you there? Is there a record of this to do list? Or do you just accept Mormon based upon a subjective testimony and reason backwards?

If the later then this is nothing but personal opinion with no tangible evidence.

There is far more tangible evidence that Smith was adulterous with a 14 year old. And that is hunky dory?

 

[bbbbbbb]

How could you possibly say that when Ephesians 4 pretty much outlines this "well oiled machine"! Jesus spent months with His disciples, teaching and training them. Do you think every word was recorded? Scriptures are the highlights, not the whole trains manual.

After the apostasy, the organization became worldly and performed as such.

. Never had the chance back then. Doesn't mean it was not on the " to do" list!

. We have epistles written to the Churches all over. I don't know how big they became, or how well organized before they apostasy. Many of the epistles were indicative of major problems, and trying to iron them out. The Church was in its infancy stage and vulnerable.

One would think that Jesus probably would not have overlooked such necessities as the immutable laws and ordinances to be performed within the sacred precincts of temples which He required to be constructed. However, all of the various writers of the New Testament failed to mention any of these laws and ordinances in any way, shape, or form. Despite the fact that hundreds of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament survive, not a single one of them mentions any of the LDS laws and ordinances, much less exaltation to three different kingdoms of glory. Why do you think that is?

 

[RevelationTestament]

One would think that Jesus probably would not have overlooked such necessities as the immutable laws and ordinances to be performed within the sacred precincts of temples which He required to be constructed. However, all of the various writers of the New Testament failed to mention any of these laws and ordinances in any way, shape, or form. Despite the fact that hundreds of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament survive, not a single one of them mentions any of the LDS laws and ordinances, much less exaltation to three different kingdoms of glory. Why do you think that is?

I don't think that is. I think you just don't accept what is already there. Paul spoke of a baptism for the dead, and the "orthodox" position that this refers to baptisms being done by pagans is without evidence or historical merit. Jesus spoke things in parables which reflected the order of heaven. He did this to hide the complete truth from doubters as He Himself said. He revealed the order of heaven in the parable of the sower which reflects the three levles of glory. You of course will reject this but consider the believers that bring forth 30, 60, and 100 fold.
Matthew 19:29
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

 

[James Is Back]

Did Joseph Smith ever read the Bible:

Deuteronomy 17:17(NIV84)-He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray

 

[Der Alte]

Did Joseph Smith ever read the Bible:

Deuteronomy 17:17(NIV84)-He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray

Don't you know God changed that scripture especially for Joseph Smith so he could have many wives?

 

[joneysd]

Don't you know God changed that scripture especially for Joseph Smith so he could have many wives?

along with quite a few others...

 

[Ironhold]

Jacob 2 -

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

[James Is Back]

Jacob 2 -

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

So what does that have to do with marrying multiple wives?

 

[Ironhold]

So what does that have to do with marrying multiple wives?

There's a caveat most critics don't want to talk about.

 

[MormonFriend]

MMksparbud, I have been inquiring about the whole concept of the Holy Spirit, as it pertains to modern Christianity, since I joined CF. Yes, The Spirit shall teach all things. Scripture states that by the Spirit is the only way to understand the things of God. Yet today's Christianity has split and divided over understanding the things of God. Which one of them listens to, and understands by the Spirit? Or does the Spirit give differing and opposing understandings that caused them to divide?

They might not all agree on everything--most people actually choose a religion by what they just feel comfortable with, by what doesn't make them think too much or feel they have to give up too much. One where they can just sit and be told what the bible says, not really by what they have delved into the word of God about. I was told by one fiend who said quite plainly they were looking for a church that didn't get too "heavy"--one where they could watch their porn and not feel guilty about it!!--that is the God's honest truth!!
And they found it, and defend it with all their might. We are a very determined people in getting what we want--the problem being, God knows what we need, but Satan knows what we want--and more often than not, the want will override the need.
But at least they do not throw out the whole idea of the Holy Spirit being the One that leads us to a knowledge of and love for God. To deny the Holy Spirits' place alongside God and Jesus cuts one off from further spiritual growth and about their only hope are the prayers of others for them. Reject the Spirit, you reject God. It can take years to get us to let go of our indoctrinations from the pulpit, from our own deeply ingrained love of power and lusts of the flesh.
Why do people choose the Jim Jones and Koresh's and Jeff Warrens?--How can anyone be told that they must give up their child to some man to have sex with because he is the voice of God and God says they must do it when it goes against the plainly written word of God? Why do people choose the doctrines of men over the doctrines of the bible?? Adam and Eve had perfect conditions and still blew it! That piece of fruit looked good, and there was someone whispering that God didn't really mean what He said, "ye shall not surely die"--you shall be as gods--nothing has changed--we still listen to the voice that speaks to our wants more than to the plainly spoken--"Thou shalt not"
And when it comes right down to it--what can we say when God asks "What part of 'thou shalt not' didn't you understand?!!"

As for how the Holy Spirit pertains to "modern Christianity"--I could care less about what is hip and modern---God has always been, He never changes, the Holy Spirit and Jesus were there from the beginning with Him and what applied to the universe then, applies to all now---period. The whole system of sacrifice has always pointed to the time when the true Lamb would be slain for forgiveness of sins--no priest is necessary now, no animals need die, Christ did it all and no Levitical ceremonies are needed now, and that is as modern as it's needed!!!

I used the term "modern Christianity" in context to "today's Christianity", not to point to the trendy aspects that have surfaced in Christianity. I agree with much of what you said, disagree on other things, but you did not answer my question (highlighted in red above). Jesus left us in the capable hands of His apostles. He gave them a commission to spread His gospel to all the earth. What is the current status, or progress on that mandate?

Every time a Christian Church divides over the interpretation of the Bible, someone is changing His Gospel. Which one today is the pure Gospel of the Son of God? The correct interpretation of the Bible is only obtained by having scripture opened up on an individual basis by the Spirit, as illustrated by the disciples en route to Emmaus. When this happens, they who understand by this means are united in understanding. Where is this pure method found today?

For example from your post, you said: "That piece of fruit looked good, and there was someone whispering that God didn't really mean what He said, "ye shall not surely die"--you shall be as gods--nothing has changed--we still listen to the voice that speaks to our wants ..." I have heard many people say this was the great lie from Satan, to suggest we shall be as gods. Is that your understanding? Yet in the same chapter of Genesis, it says: 22 ¶And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

These, and so many other doctrines have essential significance to understanding God's overall plan, including the application of plural marriage. It requires understanding by the Spirit. That is why I re ask the question above in red.

 

[joneysd]

Did Joseph Smith ever read the Bible:

Deuteronomy 17:17(NIV84)-He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray

he only read it through his hat...

 

[Moodshadow]

Jacob 2 -

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Joseph Smith might have felt "inspired" - for obvious reasons - to include this verse in the Book of Mormon, but it isn't too likely to have the influence you might hope on anyone who isn't LDS.