Testimony of Joseph Smith

[Snow]

I am fed up with people trying yes trying with all their might to discredit Brother Joseph, a prophet of god, may i add without whom there would be no church of jesus christ of latter day saints for us today (unless of course another prophet were to have been chosen for us at that time) We love him he loves us, he was a MAN who guided the church the way our father wanted him to, isen't this what having a prophet of God on the earth is all about, so if Joseph was told that the church was to become polygamous who were the members to argue, you either believed Joseph was a prophet or you dident, if you did believe then you followed his word which we believe was the word of god our heavenly father at that time.

If these dis creditors, can convince us that Joseph was a cheat, fraud, Liar and an adulterer, we may as well say the church is not the church of Jesus Christ. because it would have been built/restored on those things that brother Joseph is in fact being accused of.

I am sorry but somebody needs to stand up for Joseph seeing he cannot do it himself, Yep beginning to "see red" lol.

Who is trying with all their might to discredit JS? Why are you reading their posts?

[Snow]

Snow, please re-read the entire post that you just quoted me. I said I haven't read any of those books. I can not give you an answer about a book I admit I have not read.

I simply do not accept you and Elphaba's belief that Joseph Smith practiced polyandry. You state it as though it is a fact and is it not a fact. But that won't stop anti-mormons from trying to use it against us. They would do better to teach what their own church believes instead of attacking other churches.

For someone as critical of his work, I'd have thought you might have at least known what his work was.

[Elphaba]

That is what makes both God and Joseph enigmatic. We have their writings (most indirectly, as both did not seem to personally write much)

It is misleading to say Joseph didn't personally write much. He used scribes, yes, but they were usally transcriptionists, not writers. He was actually fairly prolific, but was ashamed of his lack of grammar and writing skills.

Elphaba

[mike_uk]

This whole Polygamy/Polyandry thing is hard to swollow I know, took me a while but it happened and we cannot pretend it did not. Im not here to harm anyones testimony and I am sure others are not too but we have a right to know what happened in the past regarding the leaders of our church. The church iteself wont teach it to us, especially matters of Polygamy/Polyandry.

[rameumptom]

To me, it doesn't really matter whether Joseph practiced polygamy or got it right the first time. It matters as to whether his revelations were true and accurate.

Now, having said that, I do believe he consummated some, but not all, of his polygamous marriages. But it doesn't really matter. Joseph was following God's command, just as Abraham was called on to sacrifice Isaac. When you think of that, Abraham was asked to do what other gods were expecting of their followers, to slay the first born as a sacrifice. In Abrahamic and Mosaic times, the first born was spared by a vicarious sacrifice. But it still does not make it any nicer to think that Jehovah would have Abraham perform a pagan sacrifice of his son.

[bytor2112]

There is a FAIR paper regarding Polyandry and Fair confirms that Joseph did practice polyandry. These marriages are referred to as Celestial marriages. It is a bit odd to be sure. Joseph asked for some members wives as a "test", including John Taylor and Brigham Young. I wonder how the wives felt about the willingness of their husbands to give them to Joseph for eternity. I wonder why God would test people in such a manner?

[StrawberryFields]

This whole Polygamy/Polyandry thing is hard to swollow I know, took me a while but it happened and we cannot pretend it did not. Im not here to harm anyones testimony and I am sure others are not too but we have a right to know what happened in the past regarding the leaders of our church. The church iteself wont teach it to us, especially matters of Polygamy/Polyandry.

Interesting thread.

Mike I agree with you about that we need to learn these things from the church or missionaries. I think this is where the problem of doubt comes from. If we are taught these things from the beginning it wouldn't seem like a deception. I believe that the facts of Josephs life need to be taught to all new members and not be something that it deeply hidden only to be brought out and cause doubt.

I have recently started a new love of church history (thanks Elphaba) and I have two generations of polygamist ancestors in my family tree. I am very happy to learn more about these people and the sacrifices they made of my behalf.

[StrawberryFields]

One thing to keep in mind: Non-LDS have a different standard for assessing Joseph Smith. The fact that we are not church members means that the status quo for us is the presumption that he was not a true prophet. Therefore any odd, strange, or seemingly negative facts will bolster our doubt.

LDS members, on the other hand, usually already have personal spiritual experiences affirming Joseph Smith as a prophet. Therefore, criticisms of him will, rightfully, be met with immediate suspicion and hostility. I'd feel the same way about criticisms of Jesus!

Hello PC,

We do not place Joseph Smith above our Savior Jesus Christ you know that right?

[StrawberryFields]

My wife really struggled with Joseph Smith and polygamy for a while. Last year, we had a musical presentation at the Church with the Stake choir dressed in 19th century era clothes and sang some wonderful songs. My wife and I were overwhelmed by the Spirit that was present. My testimony of the Prophet was strengthened and hers is now very strong.

Just curious to what this musical presentation taught you about Joseph Smith life. Was it about him and his wives or him the Prophet? Just for clarification I sincerely admire this man. I am just wondering if you are saying that the musical at the church had anything to do with his polygamy, if so I am pleased.

[rameumptom]

I disagree that everything needs to be dumped in an investigator's lap up front. Our purpose is not in sharing Joseph's weaknesses, but to proclaim the gospel of Christ, which came forth through Joseph Smith. If an individual has received a witness from the Holy Spirit, then future issues should be managed. Millions of members manage new data all the time and don't leave the Church over this stuff.

How many people in the USA DON'T know that Mormons practiced polygamy? Why does it matter if Brigham Young did and Joseph Smith did or didn't? That seems completely illogical to me.

The data is available online, in books, etc. There is no effort to hide this stuff, at least not anymore. But the Church is not here to focus on an individual's actions. It is here to proclaim the restored gospel.

If we reject the gospel due to the actions of a prophet, then why aren't millions flocking out of Christianity? Have you read the Bible lately? Moses and Joshua are amongst the first in the world to commit genocide. Abraham seemed to have no qualms with killing his own son. David commits adultery and murder, and still is later praised by Jews and God alike in the Bible. Of course, Abraham also married his young niece. And Joseph married a teenage girl, who supposedly became a pregnant virgin. John the Baptist was a freak from the wilderness and Jesus was a winebibber.

I could go on with many other points on this, as viewed by outsiders. You see the potential problems here? Christians do not focus on these problematic issues of the Bible or the people in the Bible, but focus on the gospel teachings. And so it is with us.

BTW, why don't we insist that Catholics teach their darker history in their catechisms, or Protestants do so prior to baptizing their new converts? Why don't people flee these churches in droves once they find out about the Inquisition, indulgences, Calvin burning rivals at the stake, the deadly religious wars against Islam and each other, Catholics and Protestants murdering millions of Native Americans, Protestants murdering Mormons and driving them from place to place, Southern Baptists breaking off from the Baptist Church in their support for slavery. Do I need to add more? The point is, no religion or religious figure is unimpeachable. Even Jesus' life could be viewed as living a life of intolerance, as he commanded his disciples to not preach to the Gentiles, and in calling a Gentile woman a "dog" (a serious Semitic epithet).

If people will focus on doctrine, and not on how potentially controversial issues are spun, they might find themselves with a precious jewel in the gospel.

[StrawberryFields]

I remember a great new member who joined our site and learned that Joseph practiced polygamy it devastated her. I have been a member of the church ever since I was baptized as a child but until coming to this site (LDS Talk) I had never heard some of the truths I did here. I will admit that my faith was shaken for a time because of what I felt to be deception.

I don't think we should bring people into the church by skirting around issues that will arise later. Joseph Smith is the one who restored the gospel and I believe that many people are convinced he is the head of our church instead of Our Savior.

Yes, I believe that there are many like me who will discover the truth but why not be forthright about it? I have not left the church because of the truth but I would have rather not been blind sided with it.

[bytor2112]

Just curious to what this musical presentation taught you about Joseph Smith life. Was it about him and his wives or him the Prophet? Just for clarification I sincerely admire this man. I am just wondering if you are saying that the musical at the church had anything to do with his polygamy, if so I am pleased.

It was a Stake Choir presentation about the Prophet....nothing about polygamy. But, the Holy Spirit was so strong that it made my wife and I very emotional. I guess you could say that my wife gained a testimony of the Prophet because of the Spirit that she felt.:)

[bytor2112]

My best friend is a lifelong member, inactive and from Pioneer stock. When I mentioned to him about JS having multiple wives, he was shocked. He had no idea and said he had never heard that and that seems to be a pattern for many. Also seems to be a pattern that those who are unaware of anything other than Church "faith promoting" history are not inclined to seriously study other sources. I sometimes wish I was like that. Some of the things I have read have bothered me in the past, but not so much now. As I have stated earlier, it is the Holy Spirit that converted me and that happened before I had read the BOM or knew anything about Church history. Over time the Holy Spirit has taught me and given me a testimony of many things that I didn't understand. I recognize that we are part of an Eternal world and like my children who have only a rudimentary understanding of Adult life, we also only have a rudimentary understanding of Eternal Life. We some times catch a window, a glimpse of whats beyond........:)

[candyprpl]

This may sound really stupid, but here goes anyway --- when I was in elementary school and learning US history they didn't start out by telling us about the horrible things that happened during the days of slavery and when I did learn more about those days it didn't shake me into thinking that I had been decieved and that this nation was not a great nation and founded 'one nation under God.'

Just a thought.

[StrawberryFields]

Your reasoning doesn't sound stupid to me.

If I am ever asked I will no more hide Josephs polygamy anymore than I would hide that of my ancestors, it was a different time. :)

[MichaelPAGuy]

CandyPrpl that is a very good way of putting it. The polygamy issue is one of the issues that is/was bothering me. You are correct, it was a different time back then.

[Elphaba]

I am very happy to learn more about these people and the sacrifices they made of my behalf.

Hey you!

You already know how often I write about the pioneers and how they practiced polygamy because God commanded it. But I always find myself saying the same and using the same words over and over, but not quite hitting it.

You just hit it. They did do it for you as well, as they believed living in polygamy would ensure their entire family would enter salvation.

See, you are just so clever!

Elphie

[Snow]

This may sound really stupid, but here goes anyway --- when I was in elementary school and learning US history they didn't start out by telling us about the horrible things that happened during the days of slavery and when I did learn more about those days it didn't shake me into thinking that I had been decieved and that this nation was not a great nation and founded 'one nation under God.'

Just a thought.

I guess there's a lesson in there somewhere... if you think that the Church has done "horrible things" on par with slavery and such.

[omega0401]

I would be interested in your comments about the FAIR page I linked you to.

Elphaba, as you know the link you gave me is an article called, "Tale of Two Marriage Systems" by Samuel Katich.

I’ve read the entire article. One part of it said, "In ALL cases, the women continued to live with their first husbands." That makes anyone wonder then if their marriage to Joseph really took place and if it did why they never had any kind of marital relationship at all. This didn't make sense until I read some more.

To understand the concept of what was happening at that time, one has to understand the doctrine of eternal/celestial marriage. When you are married civilly you are married until death do you part. When you are sealed as husband and wife in the temple you are married for time and eternity. Without it you would not receive exaltation in the highest degree of heaven.

When you read that these women were civilly married to their first husband and then also being sealed to Joseph, Katich's article neatly fell into place. These women were faithful to their first husband until death. When the women died they would have an eternal husband with Joseph because they were sealed to him, their first husband wanting nothing to do with being sealed to their wife. No infidelity took place at all with Joseph. They lived their first marriage as if their marriage (sealing) to Joseph had never taken place at all. So there were, indeed, two different systems of marriage taking place with these women. One marriage was for time only and another for eternity.

In at least one situation, the first husband gave permission for this to happen. All the husbands most likely did. In another situation the husband was a non-member when Joseph apparently was sealed to his wife but the non-member later joined the church. He must have had a strong testimony born of the spirit under those circumstances.

This was really interesting article and I'm glad you linked me to it. It seems that if Joseph was indeed sealed to these women but had no relationship with them until after death, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. Integrity and fidelity are totally present between all persons. Once again, "In ALL cases, the women continued to live with their first husbands."

I understand the concept of eternal exaltation through a celestial marriage but others may not understand that yet. But this is not a problem for me.

I agree with the article that you can’t really call this polyandry. It says,

“Technically, a woman with more than one husband is defined as being involved in a polyandrous relationship, or practicing polyandry. Applying the definition of Polyandry to describe these marriages, however, is misleading, as it’s compatibility deviates from LDS marital theology. In the case of Joseph Smith, the traditional definition for “polyandry” simply does not apply and the term must be redefined in light of the eternal perspectives of those involved and the lack of temporal extent those marriages entailed.”

But none of this really matters. I still believe that if a person has a testimony of Joseph's first vision, his translation of the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the church and priesthood, these events should not to make any difference in our testimony about Joseph or our religion. That's really what matters and all these other things aren't important.

[mike_uk]

I agree that maybe these things should not be talked about specifically during investigation but should be discussed openly and honestly at some stage. The church need to face their demons and not whitewash them imo. If those things from the past arent important then why are they so bothered about discussing them? Yes the information is available on websites and books but you have to dig for it. Its hard to hear it from others, who are not even members.

I am a Network Engineeer and have been using the Internet for a long time but had no reason to go looking for dirt. Even when I did find information accidentally I was so well conditioned I just ignored most of it thinking it was all made up by anti mormons without realising most anti mormon litereature is stuff from our history anyway.

I sit in Priesthood class discussing lessons on eternal marriage and how much Joseph loved his wife. Which one? I never knew he had others until fairly recently. The church will not discuss it and they should, afterall its a huge part of our history.

For instance the disclaimer in Teachings For Our Day says

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet's teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (See Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

Maybe Polygamy is not practised by us any longer but it is rude and arrogant to ignore them. There are faithful, dilligent members, maybe some even post here that are descendants from a Polygamus marriage. I just wish the 1st Presidency would just address these things and show us they arent bothered by the past. It wont happen though.

Edited July 29, 2008 by mike_uk

[Elphaba]

Omega: Elphaba, as you know the link you gave me is an article called, "Tale of Two Marriage Systems" by Samuel Katich.

Yes, I did. And after reading your comments, I almost wish I hadn’t. You have an uncanny knack for pulling information out of the essay, taking it completely out of context, and inferring things it does not say.

The reason I gave you the link was so it would ease your mind about Joseph’s marrying other women, and I think that has happened, and I am glad. I’ll address where you’ve misunderstood as follows:

I’ve read the entire article. One part of it said, "In ALL cases, the women continued to live with their first husbands." . . . .

This sentence is very poorly written, and I can see where you get the wrong impression. However, Katich is not saying the women continued to live with their first husbands until death, as you assume in your subsequent remarks. What he means is these women continued to live with their first husbands while Joseph remained alive.

In fact, Katich has given enough examples where the women demonstrably did not remain with their first husbands that I am amazed you missed it.

To understand the concept of what was happening at that time>snip<Without it you would not receive exaltation in the highest degree of heaven.

]I was raised in the Church, and I understand the Church’s doctrine regarding marriage.

When you read that these women were civilly married to their first husband and then also being sealed to Joseph, Katich's article neatly fell into place. These women were faithful to their first husband until death.

As I wrote above, that is not what Katich is saying at all.

A few of these women did not remain with the first husbands, and were not faithful to them. You really need to listen to that, and not continue on with the misunderstanding.

When the women died they would have an eternal husband with Joseph because they were sealed to him, their first husband wanting nothing to do with being sealed to their wife.

The article never states the first husband did not want to be sealed to their wives.

In fact, Zina Huntingon Burton and her husband Henry Burton were sealed for time and eternity in the Nauvoo temple once it was completed. Thus, Zina was sealed to both Joseph and her husband for eternity. That it is a whole difference conversation, however.

No infidelity took place at all with Joseph. They lived their first marriage as if their marriage (sealing) to Joseph had never taken place at all.

Again, you are inferring something the Katich never said.

While I doubt it could be described as infidelity, as they did consider themselves married, there is evidence that there were intimate relations with some of the wives. I agree it is neither here nor there. But you should be careful to be accurate.

What Katich actually wrote is as follows:

Subsequently, some have concluded that all of these marriages (whether there were eight, eleven, or some other number) must then have an intimate dimension to them. While this may or may not be the case, with one possible exception, there is simply no evidence to support an intimate dimension in these eight marriages.

Katich is dissembling here, by saying it could have happened, but he doesn't think it did. He is just not aware of the evidence.

However, when you then go on to infer Katich means it never happened, that is not what Katich said. Again, you need to be careful not to be inaccurate.

Additionally, he acknowledges there is evidence that Joseph did have relations with at least one of these wives. How you could miss this baffles me.

So there were, indeed, two different systems of marriage taking place with these women. One marriage was for time only and another for eternity.

Exactly! And a woman having two marriages is in a polyandrous relationship.

In at least one situation, the first husband gave permission for this to happen. All the husbands most likely did.

Again, you are making assumptions the article does not make. Katich never said "most likely" all of the first husbands gave permission. And in fact, not all of the husbands gave their permission.

In another situation the husband was a non-member when Joseph apparently was sealed to his wife but the non-member later joined the church. He must have had a strong testimony born of the spirit under those circumstances.

I agree.

This was really interesting article and I'm glad you linked me to it.

You’re welcome.

It seems that if Joseph was indeed sealed to these women but had no relationship with them until after death, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. Integrity and fidelity are totally present between all persons. Once again, "In ALL cases, the women continued to live with their first husbands."

And hopefully, by now, you understand that is not what Katich meant (though I still can’t believe an editor didn’t catch how poorly written that sentence was). He only meant they continued to live with their first husbands as long as Joseph was alive.

I do not have a problem if Joseph consummated none of the marriages or all of them. But Katich does not say these women had nothing to do with Joseph after the marriage.

It is not the essay’s fault you misunderstand. It is your wont to pull pieces out of the essay and then interpret them out of context, thus believing it said something it does not.

I agree with the article that you can’t really call this polyandry. It says,

“Technically, a woman with more than one husband is defined as being involved in a polyandrous relationship, or practicing polyandry. Applying the definition of Polyandry to describe these marriages, however, is misleading, as it’s compatibility deviates from LDS marital theology. In the case of Joseph Smith, the traditional definition for “polyandry” simply does not apply and the term must be redefined in light of the eternal perspectives of those involved and the lack of temporal extent those marriages entailed.”

I could not disagree more. Katich is dissembling in an effort to make Joseph’s marriages more palatable.

These women understood their marriages to Joseph were marriages, and it is insulting for Katich, or any other writer, to now presume they weren‘t really “marriages“ to comply with a modern-day revulsion for plural marriage.

What Katich is guilty of is called “presentism.” Presentism is looking at an event in history and defining it with present day mores.

I agree Joseph and his wives understood their relationships ensured their salvation. However, they also believed themselves to be Joseph’s wives in a temporal sense as well, though an unconventional one. To say otherwise is to be either purposely ignorant or just ignorant of what happened.

It matters not whether Joseph was involved in polyandry or not. I don’t know why anyone would care, if they believe Joseph was the prophet.

But the fact is, they were polyandrous marriages. He thought so, and his wives thought so, until their deaths. I think his wives knew better than Katich, or any other person who tries to whitewash their history.

In the future, you need to be much more careful about inferring things the text does not say. Just to recap:

1. The women did not live with their first husbands for the rest of their lives.

2. Katich did not say there were no intimate relations.

3. Katich did not say there was no relationship with Joseph after her marriage/sealing to him.

4. Katich did not say all of the husbands gave their permission for the marriage/sealing.

5. Katich did not say the husbands probably did not want to be sealed to their wives.

Again, it does not matter who Joseph married if a believer believes he is the prophet. The Church was so new, and many of its doctrines were still being worked out.

Additionally, I am well aware that I provided the article to you, and I think the reason I did has been achieved, in that you are more comfortable now with what happened.

However, what does matter is that the history be accurate. Inferring comments an author never wrote is a guarantee you will not be accurate.

Elphaba

[mike_uk]

I have not touched on it but the other big problem for me is the deception involved in Joseph not telling poor Emma about many of his marriages. One such example is A letter from Joseph Smith to Newel K. Whitney's daughter which reads

PAGE TWO

LINE TEXT

1 time or never, but I hav no kneed of saying

2 any such thing, to you, for I know the

3 goodness of your hearts, and that you

4 will do the will of the Lord, when it is

5 made known to you; the only thing

6 to be careful of, is to find out when

7 Emma comes then you cannot be

8 Safe, but when She is not here, there

9 is the most perfect Safty: only be

10 careful to escape observation, as

11 much as possible, I know it is a

12 heroick undertaking; but so much

13 the greater friendship, and the more

will

14 Joy, when I see you I ^ tell you all

15 my plans, I cannot write them on

16 paper, burn this letter as soon as you

17 read it; keep all locked up in

18 your breasts, my life depends up-

19 -on it. one thing I want to see you

to

20 for is ^ git the fulness of my blessing

21 Sealed upon our heads, &c. you

22 will pardon me for my ernest-

this subject

23 -ness on ^ when you consider how

24 lonesome I must be, your good

make

25 feelings know how to ^ every allow

26 -ance for me, I close my letter.

27 I think Emma wont come tonight

28 if she dont dont fail to come to

29 night, I subscribe myself your

and

30 most obedient, ^ affectionate,

31 Companion, and friend.

32 Joseph Smith

The letter and signature are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. Make of it what you will, maybe its false but its interesting nonetheless.

[rameumptom]

I agree that maybe these things should not be talked about specifically during investigation but should be discussed openly and honestly at some stage. The church need to face their demons and not whitewash them imo. If those things from the past arent important then why are they so bothered about discussing them? Yes the information is available on websites and books but you have to dig for it. Its hard to hear it from others, who are not even members.

Maybe Polygamy is not practised by us any longer but it is rude and arrogant to ignore them. There are faithful, dilligent members, maybe some even post here that are descendants from a Polygamus marriage. I just wish the 1st Presidency would just address these things and show us they arent bothered by the past. It wont happen though.

Why is it rude and arrogant? The law of polygamy is still found in D&C 132 and in Jacob 3. There are many discussion groups, like this one, which discuss these issues. The point of the PH/RS manual is to teach our current doctrines of salvation, not be a history manual to discuss dead teachings. Seems to me you didn't have to dig far into the PH manual to find a reference to polygamy. Nor do you have to dig far into the Doctrine and Covenants to find info on polygamy, either.

Would it make sense for Southern Baptists to spend time a few times a year to discuss how they broke off from the main American Baptist movement, over the slavery issue? Would it make sense for the Catholics to discuss the Inquisition or indulgences? How far back must something be in history, before it can be taken off the front page of the newspapers?

The First Presidency isn't bothered by polygamy. It is all well explained in scripture. It is allowed when God commands it, and otherwise the standard is monogamy. For a time, God commanded the Saints to live it. End of story. There is no reason to explain nor apologize for it.

Jesus called the Canaanites of his day "dogs", one of the worst Semitic epithets one could use. Should we demand all Christians today to apologize for Jesus using that terminology? Should we demand that those verses be stricken from the Bible? Should we demand Jesus to step down as Messiah over them and other things he supposedly did?

Just how politically correct must we be? My question isn't why the Church isn't broadcasting this stuff out like you would like it to be. My question is why you are so bothered by something that happened over a century ago? The environment was different. The command from God was different for them, just as we aren't expected to enter into an ark and await a global flood, we aren't expected to worry about polygamy, either. It is part of our history, but it is about as important today as building an ark is.

[rameumptom]

I have not touched on it but the other big problem for me is the deception involved in Joseph not telling poor Emma about many of his marriages. One such example is A letter from Joseph Smith to Newel K. Whitney's daughter which reads

....

The letter and signature are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. Make of it what you will, maybe its false but its interesting nonetheless.

Mike, it seems to me you are looking for reasons to leave the Church. Rather than spending your time over issues like this, which are between Joseph, Emma and God; perhaps you should spend it pondering the revealed doctrines. As it is, Emma had been commanded of God to accept this principle, and for a time, she refused. If God continues to command Joseph to obey, what is he supposed to do?

Isn't this on the same level as Abraham lying to Pharaoh about Sarah being his sister? Should we reject the Bible, because Abraham was told to lie, by God?

If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then focus on the true teachings and leave his personal life alone. If he was a false prophet, then just walk away and don't worry about it anymore.

We can find many reasons to stop being Mormon, or Christian, for that matter. Why would an all-knowing God call Judas Iscariot as one of his apostles? Why would God allow for an apostasy? Why would a loving Jesus call Gentiles, "dogs"? Why doesn't he just reveal himself to all mankind, and give us all an equal chance at salvation? Why does he allow Hitlers and other evil men in the world do their atrocious deeds? Why would he allow Moses and Joshua to wipe out cities of women and children - genocide?

Those who seek to find issues and problems will never find happiness, nor peace. Only those who look at the mark, and stop looking beyond the mark (Jacob 6) will find the true peace of the gospel.

Edited July 29, 2008 by rameumptom

[jimuk]

Mike, it seems to me you are looking for reasons to leave the Church. Rather than spending your time over issues like this, which are between Joseph, Emma and God; perhaps you should spend it pondering the revealed doctrines. As it is, Emma had been commanded of God to accept this principle, and for a time, she refused. If God continues to command Joseph to obey, what is he supposed to do?

Isn't this on the same level as Abraham lying to Pharaoh about Sarah being his sister? Should we reject the Bible, because Abraham was told to lie, by God?

If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then focus on the true teachings and leave his personal life alone. If he was a false prophet, then just walk away and don't worry about it anymore.

We can find many reasons to stop being Mormon, or Christian, for that matter. Why would an all-knowing God call Judas Iscariot as one of his apostles? Why would God allow for an apostasy? Why would a loving Jesus call Gentiles, "dogs"? Why doesn't he just reveal himself to all mankind, and give us all an equal chance at salvation? Why does he allow Hitlers and other evil men in the world do their atrocious deeds? Why would he allow Moses and Joshua to wipe out cities of women and children - genocide?

Those who seek to find issues and problems will never find happiness, nor peace. Only those who look at the mark, and stop looking beyond the mark (Jacob 6) will find the true peace of the gospel.

I have to say rameumptom i go along with everything you say in the above quote, when i say anything like it i get a telling off lol. So i will just keep reading the thread and hopefully learn something, i know it makes me stronger in spirit when i see others standing up for their belief in our heavenly father and the prophets.