Dale

Maureen-I did not ask my question to convince you. I struggle with understanding why the 2nd person of the Trinity is not like an individual person, but i am. The idea the person's arn't seperate doesn't help me very much. Officially my Community of Christ/RLDS favor's the Trinitarian view of God. The Southern Baptist Convention on a handout on us misunderstood are belief statemen, so accused us wrongly of modalism. But my copy of Exploring The Faith which explained our belief statement content wise favor's the creedal Trinity. Not being a creedal church we have had Anti-Trinitaranism also which is how i feel.

Perhap's they didn't know the information, so knew nothing to pass along to you. I got baptized inspite of the information i did not get in Sunday school. And i doubt you will get every bit of difficult information taught to you in Sunday school in any denomination. Let's look at the Southern Baptist Convention. Does every SBC member know of Martin Luther's anti-Semitic comment's? Do every SBC they know he supported polygamy to some degree himself? Religion's should focus on spreading the gospel of Jesus not on putting down their foundational leader's and scripture's with the whole ugly story. FAIR Wiki of course has an article entitled Joseph Smith's marriages to young women to place the issue in proper perspective. It's linked to on the main page. Main Page - FAIRMormon The ages of his bride's do not bother me to any degree, nor did it ever. I have no objection's to marrying young. To me as long as the parent's consent i have no problem with marrying teenager's. ---------------------- In my copy of On Behalf of Christ's Restored Gospel (Volume 1) it has a section entitled Using History to Malign Character." (pages 9-13) It's to long to quote in it's entirety, but my book cite's several comment's from Martin Luther Evangelical's and non-Evangelical's would object to today. One of which was "I confess that i cannot forbid a person to marry several wive's, for it does not contradict the scripture's."-Luther's letter's, De Wette edition (Berlin Germany: 1825) 2.549 Robert Bobbitt write's "By simply offering up a number of these quotation's in rapid succession, the reader whose prejudices are already inflamed could run wildly to a number of conclusions. Should this cause us to reject Luther's concept of sola fidei? Should we burn his translation of the New Testament? Is there any Evangelical indignation directed at Luther? More importantly, should such historical facts cause us to disregard everything Luther stood for? Coming to such rash conclusion's would be irresponsible." pg.11) The comment is from his essay entitled Restoration Orthodoxy. I am Community of Christ/RLDS, and the book defend's more my perspective. Officially my church acknowledges Joseph Smith's involvement with polygamy. We see no reason to cast out all our scripture's just because of Joseph Smith's polygamy, polyandry, or his polygamy revelation. We don't see his Nauvoo denial's of practing polygamy, not for a long time telling Emma, Emma being hurt as reason's to not be Reorganized LDS. David and Solomon did a lot of polygamy, and God used them for his purposes. Why can't Joseph Smith be a fallen true prophet? Why can't God use Joseph Smith for his purposes also? And what if he wasn't a fallen prophet, but God tolerated, but did not condone Joseph Smith's mistake's regarding Emma? What if Joseph Smith's denial's were tolerated, but not condoned by the Lord? What if his polygamy and polyandry was commanded by God anyway? What man find's distasteful might be allright with the Lord. "For my though's are not your thought's, neither are your ways my ways saith the Lord."-Isa.55:8 verse 9 is good to read also. This view favor's the LDS, but i am not afraid of the possibility God is right and i am wrong.

FAIR Wiki had an article on Brigham Young and polygamy and the Chrch's manual issue. Brigham Young and polygamy - FAIRMormon

Actually two women in the Temple Lot case claimed to have had sexual relation's with Joseph Smith. And the decision went against their legal claim's to be Joseph Smith's wive's. The judge felt if the sex happened it would make Joseph Smith guilty of bad behavior, but not breaking Illinois polygamy statutes. He did not feel Joseph Smith would have gotten convicted. I recall none of the polyandry list providing a legal document in that or court case. I recall a few of the single women providing affidavit's in the case. A few of them claimed to be "wive's in very deed" if i recall the language used right. But in no case was legal document's from any of the polyandry list provided in court. Most of the affidavit's i have in my personal library were never examined in a legal situation in court. Sylvia Session's daughter said her mother told her "that i was the daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith." (In Sacred Lonliness pg. 183) Her daughter took it as a biological claim, but her mother must have meant something regarding adoption that the daughter misunderstood. I give both of them the benifit of the doubt, but her daughter's claim to being a biological daughter is unproven. She was not Joseph Smith's daughter. DNA testing has so far been unable to confirm her claim. I have not accused Sylvia or her daughter Josephine as lying. I do not trust her daughter's claim substantiated to being a daughter though. If DNA testing ever confirm's her claim i will accept her as Joseph Smith's daughter, but not before. Just because Todd Compton think's so in his book based on several old statement's i don't have to agree with him. We only hear what Sylvia Session's said on her death bed second-hand through her daughter. We have no two witnesses to what her mother said. Todd Compton is not the LDS church. He feel's sexuality was not probably present in two cases. And he feel's sexuality was present in many cases i do not. I do not see the LDS Church as having denied sexuality in any Joseph Smith's plural marriages. They havn't been involved in the debate at all. They have never repudiated the content of any affidavit relating to Joseph Smith and plural marriage. My comment's are based solely on my reading book's like In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton. Remember Todd Compton has cast doubt on sexuality being involved in two of Joseph Smith's plural marriage's. So if the polyandrous sealing's and some of the marriage's to single women were platonic i do not see myself intellectually dishonest with myself to think that. I might be wrong, but i think my thinking sound. I do not accuse most of the women that claimed sexuality for themselve's clearly as lying. I only know of a few that ever made specific claim's though. Do you have a statement from a polyandrous plural wife for herself that bother's you? Do you have just a review of In Sacred Lonliness, or the actual book? I have the book.

I am not aware of Mary Lightner Adam Lightner's wife claiming to have had an affair with Joseph Smith. All she claimed was to have been sealed to Joseph Smith. She said based on Joseph Smith's instruction's she remained with Adam. I see no basis for seeing Adam as keeping her as a platonic companion in-between Joseph's visit's or that there were any such visits. It's not about accusing her of lying, but merely stating she never said she violated her marital vow's with her husband. Under the idea of eternal marriage children can be begotten in the afterlife. So technically the existing marriages would have ended at death, and they were free to live with Joseph Smith. So the raise up rightious seed idea behing eternal marriage would not be defeated if the polyandrous sealing's did not involve sexuality. Plus the Heber J. Grant example also allow's Joseph Smith to spiritually adopt the kid's of the men, and his wive's involved in his polyandrous marriages. Todd Compton decided sexuality was unlikely in the Helen Mar Kimball, and Patty Session's marriages to Joseph Smith. In my estimation this open's up that same possibility with other marriages. So if i felt his case for sexuality was his faulty opinion, or otherwise flawed i feel i can disagree with him.

If it's permitted we will need to discuss the matter of the issue of sexuality in those polyandrous marriage. I do not see the affidavit's saying what you think they do. In some cases Todd Compton wrote other thing's after he wrote In Sacred Lonliness that should be read when reading his book. I have the book, and spent time marking it up. Todd Compton in the Patty Session's example decided against the presence of sexuality in that marriage. He felt the only man she was faithful with was to her existing husband. Let's talk about her daughter Sylvia Session's. Todd Compton reportedly told her daughter on her death bed that she was a daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. Heber J. Grant mother had been sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, but had been called the son of the prophet Joseph Smith anyway. Unlike Todd Compton i propose her daughter misunderstood her mother. Angus Cannon reported hearing Brigham Young say before his death in 1877 that Brigham Young said Patty Session's said the same thing. But he reported it many year's after the event. I think he made up something Brigham Young never said to impress other's. Ugo Perego has done DNA testing trying to confirm of deny Josephine was a biological daughter of Joseph Smith, but can't do it. Other than the death bed statement of the mother this was the only proof for sexuality in that marriage. I think Todd Compton was to hasty to think she was Joseph Smith's daughter. I recall in the other post you asked me about Presindia Buell. Ettie Smith claimed she had told her that she was uncertain whether Joseph Smith was the father of her child or her husband. I recall Ugo Perego as having proven that Joseph Smith was not the father. But Todd Compton was open to that possibility in his book. Todd Compton in an article on No Man Know's My History by Fawn Brodie i guess challenged Ettie Smith's credibility. So it's not certain Ettie reported a true conversation with her. I think she lied. I wish he had done that clearly in his book. I will have to get you the link when i have time. But Kerry Shirt's has Mormonism Researched website. On it Kerry has a review of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? By Jerald and Sandra Tanner section. Todd Compton did a three page article chastizing Jerald and Sandra Tanner for abusing the content of his book in their writing's.

Let's say the 2nd person of the Trinity could be seperated from the other pat's of God for a moment. Could he then if made a seperate being be called a person like any of us? God is supposed the be a person in the modern sense. Allister E. McGrath in my Understanding The Trinity book said that was appropriate definition God fit's. Why wasn't the 2nd person of the Trinity in my scenario a person before? Jesus God part in my scenario kept everything he had when he was with the other part's of God. I am proposing no changes were made, but to let him exist by himself.

M-I meant like human being's in that the three are aware of each other like three human's are aware of each other. I do not see it an error in rejecting persona and admitting that the modern definition of person's fit's them closer. To be aware of another person make's you a person. I do not see the creedal idea of God if the term they adopted is spurious as being absolute mono-theism.

I do not trust the way the film's present information. I have had a number of year's experience with Anti-Mormon material and am well inoculated against the content. I do not think the critic's message worthy of consideration myself. I watch the film's to practice my defense of my faith skill. As a habit i dialogue with myself as i watch the film's. I try and improve my answer's. If a difficult subject that i am uncertain about i tend to look up the answer in my LDS resource's primarily FAIR. Since i am Community of Christ/RLDS i have some of our apologetic stuff also. My study has been a blessing in conversation with Evangelical's as answer's pop into my head.

The creedal definition of person was not in the dictionary in application to God until the creedal writer's adopted it. The Son both his spirit consciousness and physical mind is aware of the Father. The Father is aware of the Son. The Holy Spirit is also self aware. That make's them like human being's who are also aware of each other. What was the definition to define an aware person prior to the latin word persona? Can it be useful in defending the Trinity against Jewish concerns it is poly-theistic like. I think the idea of self aware part's of God come's close to tri-theism. My Understanding the Trinity book say's that the modern definition of person came into existence after the more ancient definition. So i am basically looking for a finite term that is more ancient than the dictionary definition of person's. No Jewish understanding of God needed to use the latin word persona to defend God against tri-theistic concern's because they do not see God as three and one. The latin word persona is key to defending the creedal definition of person popular Christianity uses. The creedal writer's felt calling the three God's was quite heretical. Some early Christian's i recall doing that and they got into trouble. I recall it was that kind of language that forced them to find a non-heretical way to call them something else. So that's why they picked out that important latin word persona. It's really hard for me to see what you could call the three but God's without the latin word persona. My copy of Understanding the Trinity was published by Zondervan an important Evangelical publishing house. And the author is an Evangelical scholar who know's the creed's well.

LDS scripture call's the three God. It might be very imprecise to call three God's God, but that's what LDS do. They certainly don't mean one God in the creedal sense. So they can call the Godhead God, but the oneness is figurative in the three are God's not literally the same being.

Anti-LDS have been publishing the temple content for year's. I recall tape recording of person's that snuck into LDS temple's played on radio show's. I never went to the temple, but know the content from such source's. I have no desire to discuss the content and keep my knowledge to myself. I did not find anything i watched as far as re-enactment's by Anti-LDS goe's boring, or anything i read for that matter. I rather enjoyed learning about what went on. I thought the re-enactment in the Godmaker's film interesting. But Ed Decker's eery music, and making LDS look brainwashed was a bit much. I recall erry music unless i imagined that detail. I have a copy of the film on DVD and need to watch all my Anti-Mormon film's again. I have a Foot Locker's shoe box filled with Anti-Mormon DVD's.

I understand the definition of person has changed from the ancient sense to the modern. That the person's of the Trinity were compared to the person's of an actor to avoid saying the person's were God's. They knew the three were not mere role's of God. Saying they were mere role's of God is an insult to the individual intelligence of the three as mere role's of an actor are dumb. But creedal writer's chose the misleading word to avoid honestly confessing the three were intelligent individually like three men. The modern definition of three person's applies to three of us. They knew darn well the three were aware of each other like three men are, but they chose the latin word persona anyway. It was a word having to do with an actor and his face mask's and the role's he take's in a play. Try as i might i can't see God as an actor. I can't see the person's of God like the person's of an actor. I can see them as modern person's because i feel that definition fit's them closer. I know of know no other definition of person's outside persona that the creed's can escape my concern they mix mono-theism with aspect's of tri-theism. It's only by saying they are like the dumb person's an actor play's that they can be defined as non person's person's. The creed's do not mean they are person's when they call the three person's. To call the three person's person's would turn them into God's not God. A book i have entitled Understanding The Trinity by Alister E. McGrath that helped me to understand the creed's. Zondervan publishes his short book. I think anybody confused by the idea of the Trinity should read it.

The closest example i could find was Paul. I guess when he faced such a mob he used his Roman citizen for protection instead of just submitting to death. (Acts 22:22-25) Paul was still a martyr though. Of he course he did not fight back with a weapon. I credit W. John Walsh for his Was Joseph Smith a Martyr article for my comment. The FAIR Topical Guide had a link to his article along with other articles. I enjoy prining out Lance Starr's, Was Joseph Smith a Martyr or a Muderer? article from FAIR. FAIR Topical Guide: Martyrdom of Joseph & Hyrum Unless i missed it i could not see any example's of anyone fighting back. But i do not think if anyone did fight back that it would necessarily be recorded. It would be natural instinct for someone to try and protect themselve's if they could.

The idea is Evangelical's will become former Evangelical's. Just like Evangelical's think any saved Mormon will be an Evangelical. I see no indication that heaven will become uninhabited when the New earth is inhabited by the saved. With two place's inhabited it's kind of hard to say every saved person will be in the same place. If we have two inhabited place's i do not see why we can't have more inhabited place's. So i see plenty of room in the future new Heaven and new earth for the three kingdom's. So i have no problem with four destination's that's including hell. Community of Christ/RLDS also accept the idea of the four destination. Though hell is thought to be replaced by a more permanent hell outer-darkness.

Other than Joseph smith's idea in the King Folett Sermon i do not know much beyond the idea than that. And i do not see LDS as knowing anything more than was in the sermon. The idea's of the sermon got repeated, but that's it.

I ran into the explanation Jesus the man was subordinate to God, but not the God part.

I have had experiences with Evangelical's involved as activists in witnessing to Mormon's. I have tried to meet the local Anti-Mormon's whenever possible. And i distrust their militant position that they are saved. Some of these people give off bad vibe's, and some i felt were not beyond hope. I had no reason to trust that any of them had a true testimony they were saved. I might have some significant differences with LDS, but i never have felt bad around LDS missionaries. I have felt bad around person's involved in missionary work aimed at Mormon's. I also read Anti-Mormon literature for about 20+years. It kind of helped me to decide Evangelicalism for me was untrue. I do not think religious membership effect's salvation from hell and outer-darkness. You can find saved people in anybody's church. LDS are hard to understand by Evangelical people definition wise. LDS have an idea of saved, but damned to a status without exaltation. The idea of possibly being damned to a lower kingdom is also a part of LDS belief. Using a wider definition of damnation Evangelical's do not use saved does not mean the same thing for LDS as Evangelical's. Salvation from hell to one place heaven and the future new earth is the only idea of saved i see among Evangelical's. Plus LDS have a more universalist idea of salvation. I have not yet ran into the idea among us Community of Christ/RLDS, or in our publication's. It may be present, but i have not yet ran into it. Based on a reading of Doctrine and Covenants Section 76 they see many saved verses fewer going to outer-darkness. I am not certain that reading is correct, and it does not fit if i recall the scripture right Matthew 7:13-14. Jesus meant fewer saved from failing the judgement, and more damed to the final outer-darkness.

I found an article explaining what President Hinckley meant in the Time magazine interview. I guess Time's report left out some of the citation. Downplaying the King Follett Discourse - FAIRMormon 1 Kings 13:11-32 has an incident of a prophet who spoke falsely on behalf of God, lying, and later on giving a true revelation.

The best book on the Trinity is entitled Understanding the Trinity by Alister E. McGrath. (Zondervan) The book helped me understand the Trinity idea. I am looking at my copy and it's only 154 pages. the idea does not mean Jesus was a ventriloquist at his baptism. (Matthew 3:16-18) Withing God are three aware distinct centers of consciousness. They just are not in the idea seperate beings. The body of Jesus is the only personage within God. But God is outside Jesus body. I compare it to a man putting his hand on a glove. Jesus is fully man and fully God. One illustation in my book say's Jesus allow's us to sample God. The illustration said like a moon rock allow's us to moon, but is not the whole moon.

Ettie Smith was the one who claimed Prescindia Buell was uncertain who the Father was. And Todd Compton did not trust Ettie Smith's claim. Ettie Smith was reputed to mix fiction with fact. I think Ettie Smith can't be trusted. So i see her relationship with Joseph Smith as platonic. I had to look up the information in my copy of Critiquing The Critic's of Joseph Smith by Hartt Wixom. (pg.114) You would probably have to name your 13 women. I can't think of 13 women that made such claim's. None of those women were on the polyandry list, or i would be aware of the quotation's. Almira Johnson & Benjamin Johnson both claimed Hyrum Smith approved the new polygamy doctrine and her sealing to Joseph Smith. Yet i found out Hyrum Smith was not in the know until after she was already sealed to Joseph Smith. Todd Compton never noticed that serious problem, but included their testimony also. Benjamin Johnson's was one of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's proof's his sister was involved with Joseph Smith. I am thinking of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? book case for women who were involved with Joseph Smith. I think R.C. Evan's an Ex-RLDS claim Melissa Lott Willis had claimed a relationship with Joseph Smith. Todd Compton creatively edited Joseph Smith 3rd's interview with her to weaken it's effect. In the original her own sister's doubted her claim. I doubt her claim myself. Lucy Walker was the most credible witness in the bunch. I think she was their third proof. But it's been a long time since i studied that section of the Tanner book. As far as the vision goes FAIR Wiki is organized in section's to resolve the various contradiction's critic's point to. I used to be into Bible contradiction list's until i found out Evangelical scholar's came up with some pretty good solution's. I decided that Joseph Smith's First Vision was a victim of the same kind of bad lists. Evidence does exist now of an 1820 Methodist Revival. The attempt to try and say Joseph Smith was referring to an 1824 event does not stand up to scrutiny. Plus witnesses recall Joseph Smith as having attended such events. I see Joseph Smith as living where he needed in order for the First Vision to have happened. One of the concerns is that Joseph Smith in the 1832 account does not mention anything more than he "saw the Lord." I do not think it a contradiction that make's me see the vision as untrustworthy. It's possible he just intentionally omitted the detail about seeing the Father. I have seen more scholarly answer's, but that's mine. One basic answer i heard involved Matthew 28:5 mentioning only one angel from the Lord and John 20:12 mentioning two angels. I am not un-aware of the issues. I have pondered these issues for year's. Polygamy was my tough subject that really bothered me. So i bought every book on the subject of early Mormon Polygamy i could get my hand's on. Over time i was no longer bothered by the issue. Polyandry only bothered me for a brief period of time. I am Community of Christ/RLDS which is very Anti-polygamy. Yet i respect Joseph Smith. I do not see the First Vision account differences as problematic.

I used to think myself that the objection had merit. I thought myself they had a persuasive argument for the defintion of martyr they were using. I found the FAIR response, and another i ran into responding to the objection more persuasive though. I can't blame someone unaware of the answer for finding the critic's argument on the topic persuasive.

FAIR has an article with a title Joseph Smith Martyr or Murderer i think. I may have gotten the title wrong. But the critic's point you can't call a man who defend's himself and other's a martyr is wrong. But his critic's use a restricted definition of martyr so they can try and say Joseph was not a martyr because martyr's can't fight back.

I was thinking of Matthew 7:21-23. That on the day of judgement person's who thought they were saved from outer-darkness in mortality will be surprised they were not. That's what i meant by writing "It is possible to have a false assurance of salvation." I think many Evangelical's who think they are saved and Mormon's are damned will experience that surprise.

Joseph Smith taught even his own revelation's needed to be tested before going to the people. He knew he could get a revelation from man, the Devil, and even God. So yes if he was wrong he could indeed write a new revelation. That earlier word would not really be the word of God though. He knew that other leader's felt he was wrong they could say so. Frederick M. Smith supposedly later got a new one that corrected the one he felt earlier was inspired. I do not know the story was true though. I do not know who in Joseph Smith's family who you feel were not told the First Vision in it's entirety? I know of none of them who found any account of the vision contradictory? I do not find the account's of the vision contradictory. FAIR Wiki has solution's to the often reputed contradiction's listed in Anti-Mormon writing's. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage JosephSmithtoldthetruth.com had some answer's also. Joseph Smith's account's stand's up to scrutiny, and i think his critic's have been so desperate to say he has contradicted himself that they have made a bad case against the vision. As to Joseph Smith's polyandry i do not feel he comitted adultury with other men's wive's. With Patty Session's and Joseph Smith Todd Compton gave his opinion no sexuality was present in that marriage. I do not accept Syvia's daughter as Joseph Smith's biological, but adopted daughter so i think the same about that polyandry case also. Mary Lightner Adam Lightner's wife said she was told to remain faithful with Adam in mortality. I see no indication she ever claimed a honey-moon with Joseph Smith. So i consider Joseph's relationship with her intended to be only platonic for mortality. I have studied the polyandry example's and do not accuse Joseph Smith of adultury. My feeling is these were intended not to form mortal relationship's, but agreement's to or association's for world's to come. Without sexuality being substantiated the time and for eternity wording they might have used doesn't mean much. It's about as much proof of adultury as the pretend wording used in a movie or play. What was the purpose of polyandry? I think it was so that if these men had kid's they could be spiritually adopted as Joseph Smith's kid's. It was a moral way of raising up seed without begetting the children yourself. It was quite a moral alternative to the type of polyandry people think he was engaged in. D.&C. 132:62 prevent's taking for mortality women vowed to other men. I think the husband's of the 11 on the polyandry list were told that by Joseph Smith himself. He knew a certain type of polyandry was adultury, and knew his behavior toward's the 11 women was not adulturous. If his behavior was adulturous why include an anti-polyandry clause in a revelation? The husbands of the 11 women and wive's had a high opinion of Joseph Smith's morality. It's probably best to start another post on polygamy where we can discuss your polygamy concern's. I have read most of the major book's and Joseph Smith and polygamy, so am not uninformed. Yet i like Joseph Smith quite a lot. I don't like polygamy, but i like Joseph Smith. I think he respected those 11 women and their husband's.