Joseph Smith, Polygamy, So what?

[stinkyjoe]

Just because someone is inspired of God to write for Him does not necessarily make that person a prophet. Therefore, inspiration, not prophetic office, is the key to understanding whether or not something should be believed as derived from God. And when we think of it in those terms, Joseph Smith was not an authorial instrument of God either, simply because what he did write, and elaborated on, was patently contradictory to what earlier writers, and prophets, had written or spoken in God's behalf.

So what does make someone a prophet, if not inspiration? Perhaps it has something to do with Numbers 11:29?

 

[skylark1]

If he was not a prophet, why do we Christians believe his writings are the word of God?

Hi Stinkeyjoe,

I believe that David was a king and also a prophet. He spoke what the Spirit of the Lord led him to speak:

2 Samuel 23:2
"The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on mytongue.

Paul considered King David to be a prophet:

Acts 2:29-30
29"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,


But it was Nathan who is noted as being a prophet. It was Nathan who generally served as God's spokesman to David.

It is worth noting that David did not claim that his adultery with Bathsheba was commanded by God, but something that he recognized as a sin and repented of.



BTW, you wrote that you are a "common Christian." I hope that you do not mind me asking what your religious background is? I'm not sure what a common Christian is.

 

[A New Dawn]

Just because someone is inspired of God to write for Him does not necessarily make that person a prophet. Therefore, inspiration, not prophetic office, is the key to understanding whether or not something should be believed as derived from God. And when we think of it in those terms, Joseph Smith was not an authorial instrument of God either, simply because what he did write, and elaborated on, was patently contradictory to what earlier writers, and prophets, had written or spoken in God's behalf.

PROPHET

from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specifically often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group

from Compact Oxford English Dictionary
1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.
2 a person who predicts the future.
3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory.

from American Heritage Dictionary
1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.

It seems that in most of these dictionaries, predicting the future is not even the main definition of prophet. Someone who speaks by divine inspiration is the main definition.

 

[Blackmarch]

Just because someone is inspired of God to write for Him does not necessarily make that person a prophet. Therefore, inspiration, not prophetic office, is the key to understanding whether or not something should be believed as derived from God. And when we think of it in those terms, Joseph Smith was not an authorial instrument of God either, simply because what he did write, and elaborated on, was patently contradictory to what earlier writers, and prophets, had written or spoken in God's behalf.

So if it isn't being a prophet, but rather just being inspired to write for God, why isn't there more in the bible?

 

[stinkyjoe]

BTW, you wrote that you are a "common Christian." I hope that you do not mind me asking what your religious background is? I'm not sure what a common Christian is.

Sure. I guess you could say I an an irregular at a few different churches. I was converted and baptized in the baptist church, have been somewhat regular at a half-dozen other churches at times, and mostly just read my bible at home and try to figure out what it means by myself. I guess I'm kind of afraid to get tied down to any specific religion. I like to read a lot about it, but really don't like to go to church that much. I guess if I went more, I might not be so confused.

Thanks for the insight on David.

 

[lczell]

Seems like you got straightened out on David. Yes he was a prophet and a sinner, who repented when rebuked.
As for polygamy, the Old Testament seems to discourage it, but it was not specifically forbidden, as was adultery. As for Joseph Smith, it seems that many like to point out his polygamy as evidence of sin. It is not a surprise you are confused on the issue. The New Testament does not expressly forbid it. However, Jesus brings us back to intention of God from the beginning (Adam and Eve) Matthew 19. Christians generally follow the pattern of one man one woman because of this teaching.
Finally, I can understand your confusion and why you don't go to church. Christianity in this nation often seems to bear little resemblence to the life that Jesus and the Apostles call Christians to live. I encourage you to continue to study the scriptures, and writtings from the time of the reformation. The key to understanding is the foundational summation of the Gospel. )Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.)
But I also encourage you to join a local congregation, since this is Jesus expectation of all Christians. We are all parts of the body and need the support of the rest of the body of Christ.

 

[stinkyjoe]

Seems like you got straightened out on David. Yes he was a prophet and a sinner, who repented when rebuked.
As for polygamy, the Old Testament seems to discourage it, but it was not specifically forbidden, as was adultery. As for Joseph Smith, it seems that many like to point out his polygamy as evidence of sin. It is not a surprise you are confused on the issue. The New Testament does not expressly forbid it. However, Jesus brings us back to intention of God from the beginning (Adam and Eve) Matthew 19. Christians generally follow the pattern of one man one woman because of this teaching.
Finally, I can understand your confusion and why you don't go to church. Christianity in this nation often seems to bear little resemblence to the life that Jesus and the Apostles call Christians to live. I encourage you to continue to study the scriptures, and writtings from the time of the reformation. The key to understanding is the foundational summation of the Gospel. )Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.)
But I also encourage you to join a local congregation, since this is Jesus expectation of all Christians. We are all parts of the body and need the support of the rest of the body of Christ.

Thanks for your input. When I find a congregation that I feel really good with, rest assured I'll join it. Something occured to me while I read your post. You said that the New Testament doesn't specifically forbid polygamy. Was there a law against it in the United States at the time? Maybe Joseph Smith wasn't breaking any laws by practicing polygamy?

 

[Blackmarch]

When polygamy was started there wasn't a law against it in the US, however once the LDS did start practicing polygamy, it helped push the anti-polygamy laws into place.

 

[Bond Slave]

Thanks for your input. When I find a congregation that I feel really good with, rest assured I'll join it. Something occured to me while I read your post. You said that the New Testament doesn't specifically forbid polygamy. Was there a law against it in the United States at the time? Maybe Joseph Smith wasn't breaking any laws by practicing polygamy?

Seems like you are trying to find the "perfect" church to join. Tell you what, if you ever do find a "perfect" church, don't join because like me, you would just mess it up. We are sinners and must accept that the rest of the people in the Church are going to be the same. Everyone struggles with different issues and we need eachother to overcome and keep us pointed to Jesus who will one day heal all of our stupidity and shortcomings. Don't neglect the gathering together of the Saints.

 

[gort]

At our church, nothing but sinners walk through the door...

Fellowship with other brethren are a must. There are teachers and pastors at these churches to help one learn and grow.

<><

 

[Swart]

1) Mormons Teach that when a Mormons die they become a god who will rule over a planet.

I'm going to name my planet 'Loretta'.

I think I will also have a a long-run ski slope that ends on the shores of a tropical beach where I can relax and be fed peeled grapes by my harem of young fickle things of rare feminine beauty.

 

[Bond Slave]

I'm going to name my planet 'Loretta'.

I think I will also have a a long-run ski slope that ends on the shores of a tropical beach where I can relax and be fed peeled grapes by young fickle things of rare feminine beauty.

Sorry, the muslims have got a monopoly on those girls.

 

[Swart]

Was there a law against it in the United States at the time? Maybe Joseph Smith wasn't breaking any laws by practicing polygamy?

While Ammon would probably know more about this, my understanding is that when the US became independent from Great Britain, the usage of Common Law was abandoned if favour of a Bill of Rights. Under Common Law, everything is okay unless expressly forbidden. Under a Bill of Rights, freedoms are expressed.

Complicating the matters, there is a huge imbalance in the US between Federal and State law, with the majority of laws with the states. The territory of Deseret was not a state but not fully covered by Federal law. Once a state, they could have had the ability to make it law and for this (and other reasons) Utah was denied statehood.

Plural marriage only became an issue during the time of Brigham Young and continued to escalate. It was only announced to the general membership of the church in 1852. The Federal government passed the Edmunds act and then then Edmunds-Tucker act (both unconstitutional) which sought to curb the freedoms of those who even expressed a belief in plural marriage. The act gave power to the federal government to imprison church leaders and denied members of the church the right to vote and serve on juries and the right to privacy. It gave power to the government to seize assets, including the assets of the church. Four church representatives travelled to Tennessee to change the public perception of the church in 1884. They were brutally murdered whilst study the scriptures before attending church.

Missionaries in other areas beaten, some whipped and in some cases tarred and feathered. Five of the Apostles were arrested and sent to prison, others went into hiding. Not all of those sent to prison had plural wives, merely expressing a belief in the principle was enough for arrest without trial. Missionaries avoided Missouri, where the extermination order gave a Missouri citizen the legal right to kill a Mormon on sight.

In 1890, Wilford Woodruff approached the Lord with a dilemma. On the one hand they had the revelation on plural marriage, on the other the church was meant to obey, honour and sustain the law. Plural marriage had not been illegal in the 1850s but it was illegal now. In response to his pleadings with the Lord, WW received a revelation that the practice of plural marriage was to be stopped. He issued a manifesto in October 1890 and it was approved by the membership of the church. The practice of further plural marriage was prohibited in all places of the Earth where the practice was forbidden by law. The Federal Government in turn allow all previous marriages to remain legal and pardons were issued. Much of the persecution also stopped. Since the assets of the church had been stripped, however, the church was in severe financial difficulties and on the verge of bankruptcy for many years.

Up until that time the dominant form of economy in Utah were the 'United Orders'. These were collectivised systems organised on the ward and stake level. The Bishop administered the storehouse and allocated resources as 'stewardships' to families according to their various abilities. The produce of each was distributed equally according to need. The two most famous orders were Brigham City and Orderville - which was the last to be abandoned. Interaction between the orders in terms of goods and services was organised by the 'Zion's Co-operative Mercantle Institute' or ZCMI. The exchange of money was not the dominant economic system. With the breakup of the orders as part of the confiscation of church assets, the church returned to the principle of Tithing.

In 1915, plural marriage was discontinued for all members of the church, regardless of the legaility of the country in question. Since then it was become an excommunicable offence to engage in a plural marriage.

A small number of LDS separated themselves from the church under various groupings and continue to practice plural marriuage. The largest of these groups (generally referred to as fundamentalist Mromons or FLDS) is located in Colorado City and number about 6,000.

Many LDS in the past held to the belief that plural marriage will one day be re-instated. Church leaders have repeatedly stated that this is not the case: plural marriage will never be brought back in.

Plural marriage (as practiced by LDS) was practiced differently that most people expected. It does appear that although it was revealed during the Nauvoo period, it was first practiced (at least by Joseph) as 'spiritual wifery', in that they were married for eternity only. It was at first revealed only to the leadership of the church.

In order to engage in plural marriage, several criteria had to be met. Firstly, the first wife had to consent to all subsequent marriages. Secondly, separate quarters had to be provided for plural wifes and their children. Thirdly, the husband had to demonstrate the ability to provide for all families equally. In all, about 3% of men in the church engaged in plural marriage when it was available. It in effect acted as a form of social security; often subsequent wives were widows or older women that the first wife took compassion on. Frequently the initiation to take a second wife came from the first wife and not the husband.

 

[Swart]

Sorry, the muslims have got a monopoly on those girls.

Shucks!

(Swart reaches for his Koran and a razorblade to shave his head. Now which direction is Mecca?)

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm going to name my planet 'Loretta'.

I think I will also have a a long-run ski slope that ends on the shores of a tropical beach where I can relax and be fed peeled grapes by my harem of young fickle things of rare feminine beauty.

Drat! I keep trying to rep you but it won't let me.

Anyway, that post is a hoot!

 

[skylark1]

While Ammon would probably know more about this, my understanding is that when the US became independent from Great Britain, the usage of Common Law was abandoned if favour of a Bill of Rights. Under Common Law, everything is okay unless expressly forbidden. Under a Bill of Rights, freedoms are expressed.

Complicating the matters, there is a huge imbalance in the US between Federal and State law, with the majority of laws with the states. The territory of Deseret was not a state but not fully covered by Federal law. Once a state, they could have had the ability to make it law and for this (and other reasons) Utah was denied statehood......

I don't claim to be a legal expert, but there was a law that was passed in Illinois in 1833 that made bigamy illegal. It was illegal for a man or woman to knowingly enter a marriage in which the spouse was already married.

 

[stinkyjoe]

All of this is interesting, but, to get back to the point, a few old testament prophets (or non-prophet kings) were polygamists, besides practicing acts expressly prohibited by God (Adultry, idolatry, murder, lying etc.). We still love their words. The Gideons, for example, only put two books from the Old Testament in the Bibles they distribute, Psalms and Proverbs, both written by polygamists, etc. So in my opinion, either Joseph Smith must be judged on other grounds, or we must throw out a large part of the Old Testament. We shouldn't have double standards while judging a prophet as true or false. That was the point I wanted to make when I started this thread. Maybe a better way to go now, would be to debate just what qualifies or disqualifies a man as a prophet, instead of going on incessantly about this polygamy issue.

One thing I will say about polygamy... I'm glad it's not practiced in our society today. One wife is just about more than I can handle. Imagine having hundreds, like Solomon!

 

[Zippythepinhead]

No, that is not disqualifies him. In fact, Joseph Smith is a prophet; a false prophet. He never uttered one prophecy that ever came to pass. And that is what disqualifies him as a prophet of God. His philandering was merely icing on the cake.



Different God, different, Jesus, different Holy Spirit, different gospel, different humanity, different forgiveness, different salvation, different Church, different revelation, different sin, different Devil, etc., etc., etc., than what biblical Christianity ascribes to and teaches. If you have a more specific question, I'd be happy to entertain it, and I'm sure others would as well. Otherwise, your question is too broad to really answer. Care to give it another shot?

Are you aware that JS prophicied of the US Civil War nearly thirty years before it happened? Did you know he mentioned that South Carolina would lead the rebellion? Need references I can get them.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

All of this is interesting, but, to get back to the point, a few old testament prophets (or non-prophet kings) were polygamists, besides practicing acts expressly prohibited by God (Adultry, idolatry, murder, lying etc.). We still love their words. The Gideons, for example, only put two books from the Old Testament in the Bibles they distribute, Psalms and Proverbs, both written by polygamists, etc. So in my opinion, either Joseph Smith must be judged on other grounds, or we must throw out a large part of the Old Testament. We shouldn't have double standards while judging a prophet as true or false. That was the point I wanted to make when I started this thread. Maybe a better way to go now, would be to debate just what qualifies or disqualifies a man as a prophet, instead of going on incessantly about this polygamy issue.

One thing I will say about polygamy... I'm glad it's not practiced in our society today. One wife is just about more than I can handle. Imagine having hundreds, like Solomon!

Stinky(love the name)
What qualifies a prophet for one is that there always seems to be an opposition to their teachings. Christ for example stated that a prophet was never welcome in his own country upon being run out of the synagogue at Nazareth I believe.

Also,
Saul of the OT sought Samuel the prophet from the Witch of Endor? Why go to a witch to seek out a prophet. A spirit ended up speaking with King Saul, but was it Samuel? Somehow I doubt it. But for the sake of argument one could argue that the Witch at Endor was a prophet because she "produced Samuel"

King Saul was clearly in his later years going against what Samuel and all prophets have tought about witches and sourcerers. Their power is not of God. They are evil in their practices.

Elijah was persecuted and hid in a cave. Noah was mocked for preaching about the flood. Stephen was martyred for teaching of Christ. Joseph Smith was killed for his religious convictions.

Persecution is an heritage of the followers of Christ. Maybe not physical persecution as in other times, but today we have the internet, press, books, street preachers, and bloggers. What is their main topic? Try to disprove that JS was a prophet. Well they can't do that so they attack his character, dwell on conspiracy theories, and masquerade opinions as fact. This is a form of persecution. So maybe one way to tell who a prophet is is not by reasoning and nit picking, but by looking at the great responsibility that a prophet has to teach his people about God while putting up with all the so called professors of Christ, who act more like the Pharisees of the NT than Christians.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

I don't claim to be a legal expert, but there was a law that was passed in Illinois in 1833 that made bigamy illegal. It was illegal for a man or woman to knowingly enter a marriage in which the spouse was already married.

That may have been one reason the Mormons were driven out of Illinois and set their eyes westward?