Shell72
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Shell72
-
-
That's where, in my opinion, you fall short. You don't need to know all of the history and all of the doctrine to believe the truth. If so, the Church would have no members. All that's necessary to have a testimony is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and an open willingness to learn and accept the truth. Everyone has questions, but not everyone uses those questions as an excuse not to believe. The Lord requires faith more than he requires knowledge.
"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward." - D&C 58:26
With all due respect, I am not falling short by believing without a doubt the Bible, and questioning the words of Joseph Smith which in some cases directly contradict the Bible in my opinon. I have a willingness to learn the "truth" - but I want to learn God's truth - not mans.
"A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps" Proverbs 14:14-16
-
Yes, I see what you mean. Why did Abraham lie to Pharaoh and another King about being married to Sarah? Questions beneficial to deep thought.
HiJolly
I'm glad you brought that up...
"But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."
4 Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."
6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."
GEnesis 20:3-6
When questioned by Abimech as to why he said he was Sarah's brother, Abraham stated that he would have been put to death, as Abimech was not from a God fearing area and Abraham did not want to die. He also pointed out that Sarah was in fact his sister through his father but not his mother.
Joseph Smith did not face death, and he was stading amongst believers when he stated that he only had one wife.
-
Again, I really appreciate the input I am getting here. I know for some it must be frusterating to have these conversations, and I am very grateful that we are able to :)
-
There was a time I did question his motives. After many years of research, I feel I understand Joseph well enough to be able to support some general view of where his personal morals were. I hope I'm not wrong, and by the evidence of what he taught as applied in my own life, I'm convinced I'm not wrong. John 7:17. As to that last question. You've just blown my mind, and not in a good way. How much Mormon history do you know?
HiJolly
I did not mean to blow your mind. I am trying to understand and stating my feelings honestly on the issue. I am learning about the history and as I said - the more I learn, the more questions I have.
-
However, Joseph said he was being told by God that marriage and marriage covenants entered into by civil authority were meaningless.
HiJolly
He was civily married to only one wife in 1844.
HiJolly
Can you see how that would contradict itself?
Marriage in civil ceremonies were meaningless, and the ones that mattered were the ones entered into within the church. But yet, when speaking of this TO the church - he stated he only had one wife - the one he married in a civil ceremony.
Can you see why I struggle with this?
-
He was civily married to only one wife in 1844.
HiJolly
But he was giving a Sermon HiJolly. So why would he be acknowledging a civil union and disregarding his holy unions? If he were giving a speech at Town Hall regarding marriage - i can see him attesting to one marriage, as that is what Town hall is all about. But to deny marriages that he stated were "of God" in a sermon - I don't understand that.
-
My question is, why does any of this matter? If trivial things such as this shake your testimony then you never had a testimony to begin with. Any immoral actions Joseph may have commited, and I'm not saying he commited any, do not discount the truthfulness of the gospel. The gospel is eternal and beyond the limitations of man. He was still a prophet of God. Prophets are still men and make mistakes just as anyone else. They're still prophets, and the gospel is still the gospel.
You know what the_jason, you are 100% correct - it should not shake one's testimony.
I do not question the Bible or any of the scriptures that were written in it. I question anything by Joseph Smith - and this is what I struggle with as his words founded the entire LDS Church. If his words were for his own benefit, and not to glorify God and help God's children - then I take issue with omitting some and using the rest as a guideline for one's path. I'm having problems putting this into words - do you understand what I am trying to say?
-
I really don't agree. It's like taking the Wiki as synonymous with peer-reviewed, scholarly research. No dice. 'Taint so. Sure you can find a lot of hits, but where are they? Who's putting them up on the Web? What research did THEY do? How reliable are they? Accusing is not the same as proving. Stating something is not the same as proving it is so. As I said, the standard of evidence here seems to be compatible with something like Middle School scholarship. Certainly nothing to hinge something as important as religious faith on, don't you think? Again, IMO. HiJolly
I agree absolutely. But when site after site is saying the same thing, and there is documents, testimony etc to back it up on one side and the reasoning of "well we didn't understand what it was like then" and "they were lying" on the other - I tend to lean a certain way.
If you don't like what you've been reading about Joseph, I don't blame you. I read a lot of stuff about him that I don't like, also. If you believe it, well, that's your call, I suppose.... HiJolly
Did you not question his motives when you read what you did? Did you not find them to be more beneficial to himself than to God?
Well, I can think of a number of reasons that what they recorded in their affadavits might be questionable. I wouldn't accuse them of lying, of course, 'cause that would be rather unreliable itself, since I wasn't there and don't know their circumstances.HiJolly
I can't think of one reason why a married woman would lie about such a thing. Maybe one - but not a group of them.
I'd like to see the source for that quote. It is false. The word 'biological' was not spoken. I'd love to see that source. The mother told the daughter that she was Joseph's daughter, and that is justifiable on the basis that Josephina Lyon was sealed to Joseph as his daughter. You know, temple ordinances. As I already said, the DNA test has been done. .HiJolly
I apologize - I was paraphrasing to make a point and I should have clarified that. My point was, that is not something that would be misunderstood. A mother would not take it lightly when she was indicating to her daughter her true paternity I would think.
Why do you believe that is the truth? Where is your evidence? Who are you believing, and why? Who is misrepresenting what? Your standard of truth is at least as warped as mine, no matter which side of bias you are on
Proving to the reorganized church that Joseph did indeed practice polygamy, for one. Back when those affadavits were taken, that was the whole point. I hope you knew that.
They were not adulterous. You're not listening. You don't appear to be interested in both sides of the story, it seems to me.. HiJolly
Absolutely we are all open to our own interpretation of the truth. What I have found in my search of the truth about the very foundation that the church was built on, is that there are inconsisties to God's word, so I question that. I believe you and I are both on the same side Hijolly. Honestly I do - I believe we both are seeking God's will and we both have been saved by the blood of Jesus. The only difference in "sides" is that I question Man's involvement.
-
I have read Todd Compton's "In Sacred Lonliness", which is pretty much accepted as the definitive work on the subject (though books by Van Wagoner and Hardy are widely accepted as well). Nowhere in these books is the statement made that such 'adultery' occured. Abraham had more than one wife. Are you saying he was an adulterer? Please don't avoid this point. HiJolly
Absolutely not avoiding this point. But can you point me in the direction of anywhere where it is written that Abrahams wives were also wed to other men?
Please demonstrate where he broke God's law. If you assume God did not tell him to marry more than one wife, then still, there is no compelling evidence that Joseph ever had sex outside of marriage. The one supposed 'smoking gun' of the Sylvia Lyon statement turned out, after DNA testing, to be incorrect. So, where's the evidence? Anyone can make accusations about anything. HiJolly
Joseph hid these marriages from his first wife Emma. He asked of his wives that they not reveal the marriages to her. This is well documented in the book that Mr. Compton wrote that you state is accepted. Why, if he was doing what God commanded him, would he feel the need to hide it? There are many many women who have stated that they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith - and yes it is very easy for people in this day and age to discredit them because they are not here to defend themselves. But I ask you this - why would they lie? Do you think having sex with one man while married to another boosted their reputation? Do you think it caused harmony within thier original marriages? I personally think these women put alot on the line to tell their stories and to discredit them so easily and dismiss their testimony does not do anyone any justice.
Its a question of what evidence you accept, and what evidence you don't. Its a question of whether you are interested enough in the truth to actually go back to the source documents and read for yourself, from the actual participants, the events they describe. I seriously doubt you have done this. Why? Because I have done this, at least until my questions and concerns were satisfied. Now, if you have done your research, looked up the footnoted journals and newspaper entries and court documents, then, OK. We're all entitled to differences of opinion. HiJolly
I have been reading and researching and praying over this issue HiJolly - I am not taking this lightly. I have read both sides of the story with an open mind and I can not make peace with his actions.
But to take some biased nay-sayers' opinion over your OWN, is not good methodology, IMO. HiJolly
If I can be so bold, the same could be said about the reverse mentality. To just take man's word, when there are piles and piles of documents to suggest the contrary does infact require that we are to question this, and use the minds that God gave us.
I have been reading and researching and praying over this issue HiJolly - I am not taking this lightly. I have read both sides of the story with an open mind and I can not make peace with his actions.
I agree - you don't understand it. Have you read any books by Mormons or non-member scholars of Mormonism (such as Jan Shipps) that DON'T have an axe to grind? Hmmm....
Try "Remembering Joseph" by Joseph Fielding McConkie. I read it last year, and these are (at a guess) about 90% first person accounts of people who actually knew Joseph, who actually interacted with him. Both from within and without the Church. A fascinating book.
HiJolly
I have only read what is available to me, and recently spoke with a former member who had no axe to grind other than his own personal perspective on it - which I will not go into because it is not my perspective to tell, and I am not here to offend. I took this with an open mind, and did more research, more reading, and as I said earlier - I can not make peace with Joseph Smith and the more I read into it I am just ending up with more questions than answers.
-
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.
This is what gets me as well. It has been well documented, within our courts, within many documents etc that Joseph Smith was having sexual relations with these women. It is not hard to find - a simple google search brings up many ill-refutable results. The church seems to explain this away with a myriad of reasonings - but why would these women lie? How could a daughter ( in your example) misunderstand the words "Joseph Smith is your biological father". The women who were TBM, who told of their experiences are explained away as liars, or second-hand information or anything instead of just telling the truth. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with other men's wives. What would these women have to gain by lying? They were admitting their own adulterous affairs? Would it not have been safer to hide behind secrecy rather than tarnish their own reputations?
-
It wasn't adultry to be polygamist, remember. Ask all the Old Testament prophets who practised it. But thats niether here nor there, Joseph was COMMANDED to introduce the practice by God.
And this does not mean God doesn't change "things". His plans and purposes are his business. If you want to bind the Lord to things he has done then Israel would still be in bondage. Did the Lord "change his mind" when he freed them? Obviously we can point out many many examples of how the Lord "changed things" but that doesn't mean He "changes" his mind like a man does.
I agree - polygamy in itself is not adultery by some standards. That is not what I take issue with. Being bound to another man's wife is adultery though. God clearly commands us ( as illustrated in the verses I provided) that this is not to be done. He doesn't say "unless I tell you otherwise" or "unless someone tells you that I said it was ok" He makes no room for judgement calls in his words.
-
I mentioned to some of you that I recently had a family member baptized into the mormon/LDS faith. After speaking with him, I realized I knew very little about the religion and started doing some research - including joining this board, reading passages that you all have graciously provided me, and just basically trying to understand as a whole.
I am full agreement with the religion as a whole - and we are in very strong agreement that Jesus died for our sins so that we may be all be spared, and that God is loving, forgiving and full of Grace.
What I do have a problem with is Joseph Smith and the practices he inducted into the church. I hope that someone can explain this to me because I truly do not understand.
It is stated time and time again in the bible that adultery is wrong even in the ten commandments as well as mentioned throughout the bible .:
"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10
"For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors' wives and in my name have spoken lies, which I did not tell them to do. I know it and am a witness to it," declares the LORD." Jeremiah 29: 22-24
It has been documented and sworn affadavidts have been filed that Joseph Smith did indeed commit adultery with other men's wives. I absolutely understand that polygamy is not a part of the LDS faith in todays Church - that is not what I take issue with. What I take issue with is the very founder of the Church, was using God's name to justify breaking His laws. Why was he believed? And why is he still revered today? Sitting outside your Church please understand how incomprehensible this appears. Please put yourself in my shoes for just a moment, and tell me how you believe this would appear to you. A young man, riddled with hormones as all young men are, comes out of the woods and says "God told me to have a bunch of wives - even those that have already vowed before Him that they will remain faithful to their husbands, and it goes directly against God's Law".
Now, along comes Mr. Woodruff who says in 1889 that God has told him that He will protect his peoples practice of Polygamy, and then two years later in 1890 issues his manifesto telling the Mormon people to stop this. The Bible tells us over and over again that God does not change:
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23: 18-20
I believe that verse speaks against the actions of the LDS two fold. First of all - If God wanted man to be polygamous, he would not change his mind. Secondly - Woodruff said God gave him a revelation that the practice would by protected - but yet he chose two years later to denounce the whole thing? Where was his faith that God would speak and then not act? If God revealed something to someone - that is a pretty big deal, and I don't think you would denounce it publicly.
This is the very foundation that the LDS church was built on...and I dont' understand it. And I don't understand why people would believe what Joseph Smith was saying - if it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?
-
For me, it's not so much a matter of offence as it is difficulty in expressing one's self in things that are not empirical, not sharable --- ineffable, if you will.
Essentially, revelation is unique to the individual receiving it. If the individual wants to even THINK about pure intelligence they have received from God, they must CHANGE it. I know this by personal experience (just in case you were wondering). To translate a feeling into our thoughts, is not easy -- particularly if they are not our own feelings. Then one would have to go from thoughts to words. And even though we do think in words, still, to transform it from a personal thought into a publically acceptable series of words, is also not easy.
Add to this the fact that God does not always reveal things to us in the same way. AND, we cannot dictate to God when (or if) He will speak to us. As far as I know, there is no such thing as revelation on demand. HiJolly
I understand that hijolly - my questions were more along the lines of his ( Joseph Smith) story itself varying. It is not a case of God revealing himself to Jim, Bob, and Tom and they all present the same story in different words. This is a case of Joseph Smith varying the actual account of his vision. This makes no sense to me.
This impacts what a prophet has to work with, when the institution they lead NEEDS input (revelation). Revelation can come as very subtle feelings; It's not usually that blast from Heaven, as some would suppose. When all you have is impressions the meaning of which is hard to even determine, you can't just do nothing, the institution demands that you act. So, you do. I don't think of this as deception or fraud, but rather a need of the institution that must be filled if the institution is to survive. HiJolly
It's like this. Say Joseph Smith has a huge feast prepared for him. He tells everyone he ate chicken at 6 oclock and it made him just full enough that he was at peace. Then he waits awhile and says he ate roast at 7 oclock, and the smells were so over powering that he could taste it before it even touched his lips. THEN he tells everyone he at Turkey at 6:15 and it words could not describe it's flavor. Yes - I am over simplifying it. But he either had chicken or he had Beef ( or Turkey in this case). The feelings may change but the details would not.
No, that's what I'm saying. The fact that you ever wrote it in the first place, means that you already have revised it. Unless you 'channeled' it, which I think also happened to Joseph, but certainly not all the time! HiJolly
I have not revised it - that is my point. I wrote my thoughts/feelings/emotions on the subject and they did not change. If I were to write in 10 minutes a totally different account of it - that would be a revision in my opinon.
No one must follow. "Know this, that every man is free". And yes, the one God chooses must dictate and alter the message. It cannot be delivered in its ineffable form. HiJolly
That I totally agree with.
Bummer, because I believe that's exactly how He does it... That's what I get from all of scripture. HiJolly
Where in Scripture does it say - Go tell the people what you think I meant and then change it as you see fit? I have seen instances where God commands prophets to speak his word, but nothing indicating that Man should change it in anyway.
<sigh> Who said Joseph coveted? Are you that good of a judge? And a sealing ceremony does not imply sexual relations, especially when the woman is already in a marriage relationship. We have first-person evidence that husbands were asked for their permission. We have no first-person evidence I am aware of that Joseph did NOT ask permission of a husband. HiJolly
We have no first hand evidence that Joseph DID ask permission either. If a man were to approach another man and ask that he take her hand also in marriage do you think that would be acceptable? The marriages were in secret - as noted on the lds-mormon.com site. ( In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith - Todd Compton - book review). His own first wife was hurt by his actions, not really a man honoring his wife as commanded in the Bible is it? And there WAS sex.. he had TEN virgins to start off with. I find it a little convenient that this man said God told him to "have" ten virgins. Precinda D. Huntington, a faithful mormon, was married to Normal Buell, and when she became pregnant was unaware which one of her husbands was the father of her child. 13 LDS women testified that they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith - were they lying?
What assumptions are being made, here? What justification is there? If you're basing these suppositions on 'human nature', then I invite you to reconsider. When we have much, much evidence on the nature of Joseph's character, many from first hand, contemporary witnesses. You are not contemporary to Joseph, nor have you met him first-hand. Judge wisely.
HiJolly
The evidence of Joseph Smith's character is all over the internet - some of it is unsubstantiated, some of it is false, some of it is angry ex-members stretching the truth to make a point. BUT we also have documented court papers, testimony of his wives, his own vision, his own changing of the vision etc to base our decisions on. Which goes directly back to God giving us a free mind - it is not wrong to question these things in my opinion. It is good and if something seems wrong, it is our duty to not blindly follow but to seek out the word of God and do what HE intended. What our hearts, and our Bibles tell us that he intended. I do not need a mortal man to tell me that God wants me to do something especially when it is greatly benefitting the person telling me to do it - God speaks to all of us, and I do believe we all need to be more willing to listen.
-
I'd like to point out the Gospels in the New Testament, and some of the differences between them, especially in John.
It's the same story, but the accounts are different in several spots.
The different books were written by different people - the slight variances were from person to person, not the individual stories.
-
NO, it was in a different thread. Don't worry, your fine, for now!!!!
Phew!!! :)
-
He's on a 24hr "time-out" for using inappropriate language, and no, it wasn't me that did it.
It wasn't the Joseph stuff was it? I just don't want to get in trouble..
-
Why was the_jason banned? What did he do?
-
SilkRose - very well done :)
-
The subsequesnt knowledge gained from not only the the "First Vision" but from other modern revelation as well, led me to RE-READ and RE-DISCOVER the subject in the Bible and found that it makes perfect sense and strengthens my testimony in the church.
The term "saved" can be applied in many different circumstances. To try and define it as a black and white definition and apply it homogeneously across the scriptures will not only lead to confusion but is a mistake. If a scripture said " And Jesus saved Peter from the lion before he went home and saved 5 dollars." was real, would that change peoples unequivocal definition? We all know that many different man wrote the many different scriptures we hold to be true and they spoke in different manners and even in different languages. It is safe to say that the SAVE-ior ( Savior) can and will indeed "save" you. If anything more than that confuses you then stick to what you know and continue to read and pray . :)
My $0.02
In the Bible it is referred to time and time again that unless "saved" souls will be condemed to death. When someone speaks of getting Saved, within their faith, I think we can all agree that they are not confusing this with saving 5 dollars, and being saved from lions. Semantics aside, Our Savior Saves our Souls from damnation as stated in the Bible many times over.
-
I was LDS back in 1979. I was baptized Community of Christ/RLDS in 2005.
We had a reputed situation once where Frederick M. Smith had recieved a revelation. And he took it to our twelve apostle's at that time, and they doubted it. So he reportedly ended up re-writing the document. I do not know if the story is true. But Ex-RLDS turned Evangelical R.C. Evan's in an Anti-RLDS book he wrote recalled the event. It bothered him that a prophet would write again a revelation.
I could see those in the LDS leadership who firmly supported the policy in the LDS First Presidency, 12 reacting similarly. So if a revelation had been given before Spencer W. Kimball i think pretty confidently it would have been rejected.
I think they would feel the revelation if the fictional one had been given earlier that it was of man, or the Devil. I doubt they would feel they would be arguing against God.
I hope I do not offend anyone by writing this - but this is my honest response to your post.
If that story were true - would you not agree that Mr.Frederick Smith's integrity could be doubted. Because, putting yourself in his shoes, if God presented you with a revelation - would you as an earthly being find yourself "worthy" enough to re-write a revelation? I highly doubt it, being as you were fearful and close enough with God to recieve this revelation - the chances of you meddling with His Word are slim to none right?
So, I bring that back to my original thoughts - If Joseph Smith were to have recieved a beautiful gift from God for His Children - a message of hope and important instructions that they must follow, do you think a man whom God chose to reveal himself to, would take it upon himself to dictate and alter ( for lack of a better word) this message - changing it's substance and details while he revealed it?
I read a poster comment that we could assume he must have told his family the whole story - but God didn't bring the message down for Mr. Smith's family - he sent it down for God's family - so why didn't he relay the vision in it's entirety and pureness in the manner in which he said God delivered it to him? Why would he feel the need to alter it? I just can not see God choosing a man to deliver a message, to unleash his own plans on to have a earthly man decide how it will be relayed...
My other problem with Joseph Smith is that he married other men's wives - I'm not going to get into the polygamy debate as it is a non-issue in todays church. But I am going to address him marrying another man's wife - and creating a "sealing" ceremony to bind them. This goes directly against the ten commandments, as he is encouraging these woman to commit adultery - entering into a sacred relationship with another man's wife. The Bible Commands us not to covet another's wife. I do believe that having your wife "sealed" to another man would be a source of conflict...
So why, would God trust his Words, his Own Vision, to a Man who publicly goes against what God has instructed his children to do and yet God's children are to believe that this man's teachings were straight from God?
Please, again, no disrespect intended - I truly appreciate this forum allowing all beliefs and opinons to come together here to respectfully discuss things - that in itself is a remarkable testament against the claims that the LDS is a close minded group, and I do want to express my gratitude for being able to voice my opinons and questions freely here.
-
Your comparison of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith is right on. People felt that Jesus couldn't leave well enough alone. He came and did away with the law of Moses and instituted a higher law. Joseph Smith did virtually the same thing, saying that no church on the earth at that time was correct, and bringing forth a new "bible." The persecution continues today, albeit in less violent forms, but still just as hurtful. In my opinion, this persecution happens for two reasons. One, people are afraid of change. They don't want to hear that what they've been doing is now suddently wrong. Two, they know we're actually right, but don't want to change or take responsibility for their actions.
I like to think back to the lives of Christ and the Prophet Joseph and think of all they endured to fulfill their missions. Nobody will ever come close the the level of persecution that they endured, yet they did it willingly, with an eye single to the glory of God, and God only. Oh how I can't wait to meet them and thank them.
Do you not see a difference between Joseph Smith and Jesus? Jesus was the son of God. Joseph Smith was a normal man who spoke of a vision he had. There is a big difference there in my opinon...
-
Shell, you might want to read my profile. I'm not LDS. So, I do not see a person's view of Joseph Smith entering into the salvation question.
BTW, I'm guessing that most LDS would not believe accepting Joseph Smith's accounts as gospel would be a pre-requisite of entering into the heavenly kingdoms (at least not the lower two).
Sorry - I wasn't sure if you were LDS or not.
I am glad to hear about the second part.. :)
-
ummm... Perhaps this is a bit of a nit, but we are totally not talking about what Joseph said. We are talking about what he wrote, or dictated to be written. I'm very sure he spilled it all to his parents and family. We know he also shared it with his Pastor.
Remember, he was NOT an historian. The criticism is pointless, IMO.
HiJolly
I am not trying to criticize. I just think if God had a message for me to deliver, I would deliver it. ALL of it.
Please don't take my tone as critical - I have a lot of questions and somethings do not make sense to me so I voice this in hopes that there are answers.
-
IntoGod, God is a loving and forgiving God and it is your relationship with Him that matters most. If you confess and ask for forgiveness know in your heart that God has forgiven you, loves you, and this is what salvation is all about. Please don't dwell on your mistakes - we all make them, and the true test of Faith is how we handle them.
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace"
Ephesians 1*7
Please explain this to me... I honestly don't understand
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Honestly, I am undecided on that issue. I read that when Joseph's ways were exposed in a newspaper he declared martial law and was indicted for treason, was put in jail, and sent someone out to bring back men to break him out of jail. The person declined, and an angry mob broke in and murdered him.