Opinions On The Great Apostasy Theory.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ThunderFire+May 13 2005, 02:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThunderFire @ May 13 2005, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@May 13 2005, 03:08 PM

It is my opinion that the organization can go into apostasy by altering the beliefs and ordinances and all the other stuff I listed on the other board (or in other words, denying the truth of the gospel), but that individuals cannot.  That is just the opposite that you believe.

How is an organization different than individuals? It seems you may have this backward because an organization cannot change a thing, only the individuals involved can make any change. But then, who is to say that since "you" didn't change you were then the one in apostasy because you didn't follow? Such a conundrum of sorts! Everyone accuses the other of being in apostasy, when they of course are not

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

An organization is made up of individuals. Not all individuals have the same goals, motivations, beliefs, etc. And, IMO, the higher in an organization a person is, the less motivated by God and the more motivated by self he is.

[Jason]

An organization is made up of individuals. Not all individuals have the same goals, motivations, beliefs, etc. And, IMO, the higher in an organization a person is, the less motivated by God and the more motivated by self he is. 

Is this the reason why you (Restorationist LDS) reject some of the teachings of Joseph Smith's later years?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 13 2005, 03:07 PM

An organization is made up of individuals. Not all individuals have the same goals, motivations, beliefs, etc. And, IMO, the higher in an organization a person is, the less motivated by God and the more motivated by self he is. 

Is this the reason why you (Restorationist LDS) reject some of the teachings of Joseph Smith's later years?

I'm not sure if you mean Restorationist RLDS or Reorganized LDS.

But anyway, as everyone is entitled and encouraged to study the scriptures to come to their own belief so that we cannot be accused of being spoonfed, , I would say that everyone has his/her own belief about this question. But I would say that, on the whole, that would be correct. Maybe.

[Jason]

I meant Restorationist RLDS.

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 11 2005, 03:00 PM

I just want to know what your opinion is. You need not provide any evidence. Just what you think justifies your personal belief is this.

Thanks.

PS. I've no intention of turning this into a debate thread. Just wanna hear your private views. :)

Perhaps the most compelling is the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and through him restored the Church. Why would God need to restore it if it had not been taken away AND, who would know better than God?

[Dale]

Hi,

Jason the Restoration RLDS, or Fundementalists reject the idea Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen prophet. The Cummunity of Christ have persons who feel Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen but not false prophet. Although with the fallen idea it's believed he repented of his association with polygamy.

For a traditional book on Joseph Smith Jr. Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is online to read at http://www.restorationbookstore.org which I enjoy.

The Community of Christ official position is not to take positions on historical matters. Thought it calls which is true that a lot of polygamy evidence is circumstantial such as diary journal notations. It say's which is also true it can be read as pointing to Joseph Smith Jr's responsibility for polygamy. Either popular view works for me.

My Community of Christ baptism is scheduled for May 26th. I waited patiently for baptism for years off & on.

-----

To get back to the apostasy issue either Martin Luther reformed a partially apostate church or left it in apostasy. I prefer to encourage persons interested in the reformation to explore those claim's for themselves.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Jason]

srm

Perhaps the most compelling is the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and through him restored the Church. Why would God need to restore it if it had not been taken away AND, who would know better than God?

Of course, if it was God who appeared to Joseph Smith, then you've got a good point here. Thanks srm.

[Jason]

Big D,

Jason the Restoration RLDS, or Fundementalists reject the idea Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen prophet. The Cummunity of Christ have persons who feel Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen but not false prophet. Although with the fallen idea it's believed he repented of his association with polygamy. 

Interesting. I'd like Jenda's take on this. My understanding was that all of the RLDS and offshoots believed that if Smith did authorize polygamy, that he was a "fallen" prophet (at least temporarily). I assume that this fallen status would include Smith's failed attempt at translating the so-called Book of Abraham, and other like items?

My Community of Christ baptism is scheduled for May 26th. I waited patiently for baptism for years off & on.

Interesting. Does the CoC baptise like the LDS? In other words, do they dunk you one time, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 16 2005, 12:08 PM

Big D,

Jason the Restoration RLDS, or Fundementalists reject the idea Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen prophet. The Cummunity of Christ have persons who feel Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen but not false prophet. Although with the fallen idea it's believed he repented of his association with polygamy. 

Interesting. I'd like Jenda's take on this. My understanding was that all of the RLDS and offshoots believed that if Smith did authorize polygamy, that he was a "fallen" prophet (at least temporarily). I assume that this fallen status would include Smith's failed attempt at translating the so-called Book of Abraham, and other like items?

My Community of Christ baptism is scheduled for May 26th. I waited patiently for baptism for years off & on.

Interesting. Does the CoC baptise like the LDS? In other words, do they dunk you one time, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

The RLDS Restorationists (for the most part) do not believe that Joseph Smith had anything to do with polygamy. They do not believe that Joseph translated the BoA by the gift of the Holy Spirit and that it was never intended to be used as scripture. They do reject the things that happened at Nauvoo, however, they do not take the stance that he was a fallen prophet. That I do is because I am a hybrid. After being part of the liberal CoC for most of my life, and knowing, intimately (almost) real church history, there are some things I cannot deny, and so I do believe him to be a fallen prophet even though I am a restorationist. I do believe that he did repent of being associated with polygamy (even though I believe he did not practice it, I do believe he was associated with it) and worked to stamp it out prior to his death, and that that is one of the reasons for his death.

Yes, they dunk once in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@May 16 2005, 05:14 PM

The RLDS Restorationists (for the most part) do not believe that Joseph Smith had anything to do with polygamy.

Seriously? Isn't kinda like denying that WW II really happened? Or believing that the earth is only 6000 years old?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+May 17 2005, 12:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ May 17 2005, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@May 16 2005, 05:14 PM

The RLDS Restorationists (for the most part) do not believe that Joseph Smith had anything to do with polygamy.

Seriously? Isn't kinda like denying that WW II really happened? Or believing that the earth is only 6000 years old?

Yeah. But I can't make them see or believe the truth.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Dale@May 15 2005, 07:46 PM

The Community of Christ official position is not to take positions on historical matters. Thought it calls which is true that a lot of polygamy evidence is circumstantial such as diary journal notations. It say's which is also true it can be read as pointing to Joseph Smith Jr's responsibility for polygamy. Either popular view works for me.

I don't think so.

That Christ walked the earth, if true, was a historical matter. The Church takes a position on that - does it not.

That Joseph Smith was a polygamist is a historical fact. Why wimp out by not taking a position on it - like yeah, but we disagree that it was good?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+May 17 2005, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ May 17 2005, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Dale@May 15 2005, 07:46 PM

The Community of Christ official position is not to take positions on historical matters. Thought it calls which is true that a lot of polygamy evidence is circumstantial such as diary journal notations. It say's which is also true it can be read as pointing to Joseph Smith Jr's responsibility for polygamy. Either popular view works for me.

I don't think so.

That Christ walked the earth, if true, was a historical matter. The Church takes a position on that - does it not.

That Joseph Smith was a polygamist is a historical fact. Why wimp out by not taking a position on it - like yeah, but we disagree that it was good?

There is no proof. Out of the, what?, 32 other "wives" that Joseph was supposed to have had, there are no children. That seems odd for such a verile man.

[Jason]

[Devil's Advocate]

There is no proof. Out of the, what?, 32 other "wives" that Joseph was supposed to have had, there are no children. That seems odd for such a verile man.

If you were trying to hide your polygamous relationships from the outside world, and the women were getting pregnant, what would one do to prevent the child from being born?

[/Devil]

[Jenda]

Take them to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic?

Throw them down the stairs?

I give up. What?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+May 17 2005, 07:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ May 17 2005, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@May 17 2005, 07:30 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Dale@May 15 2005, 07:46 PM

The Community of Christ official position is not to take positions on historical matters. Thought it calls which is true that a lot of polygamy evidence is circumstantial such as diary journal notations. It say's which is also true it can be read as pointing to Joseph Smith Jr's responsibility for polygamy. Either popular view works for me.

I don't think so.

That Christ walked the earth, if true, was a historical matter. The Church takes a position on that - does it not.

That Joseph Smith was a polygamist is a historical fact. Why wimp out by not taking a position on it - like yeah, but we disagree that it was good?

There is no proof. Out of the, what?, 32 other "wives" that Joseph was supposed to have had, there are no children. That seems odd for such a verile man.

Of course there is proof.

If you arbitrarily define proof as "known and verified offspring from non-Emma wives" then there is no proof but no one is talking about offspring. The issue is that JS was polygmously married. Certainly there is no solid proof that he was sexually active outside the Emma relationship - just sketchy evidence at best. But plural marriage, let's get real. Do you doubt that the evidence would not pass a legal proof standard?

[Jason]

Take them to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic?

Throw them down the stairs?

I give up. What?

Yeah, I guess something like that. I certainly hope that Smith was "above" something like that. I guess there are other methods for preventing pregnancy that may have been used.

[Dale]

Hi,

Jason I used to take the view that the Book of Abraham was the totally speculative writing of Joseph Smith Jr. After examining Kerry Shirts defenses of the facimilie explanations my views changed. Now I no longer feel the work has been entirely discredited. Like LDS apologist Paul Osbourne I believe the papyrus was a catalyst to reciece a story about Abraham. Although I admit Kerry Shirts review of the Lost Book of Abraham film which I have on DVD also convinces the the source may be lost. Paul Osbourne almost convinced me of his catalyst only idea but I have a few doubts. The large Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham also convinces me the text may not be just fiction.

John Tvedtnes at the Foundation For Apologetic Information & Research's next conference talk is Book of Abrahan Hits & Misses that should be good.

I got a book from IRR entitled By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson. Kerry Shirts did a DVD review of Larson's book for me. The book ignores the case for the Book of Abraham. I feel he overstates himself on rebutting the theories of LDS scholars used to defend the Book of Abraham. Although I agree with Charles Larson on a few of his criticisms.

People only imagine the Book of Abraham has totally been discredited.

The Holy Spirit was clearly claimed to have been involved in translation.

----------

I don't hold Joseph Smith Jr. was a fallen prophet. The Community of Christ website admits the case from diaries & journals linking Joseph Smith Jr. to some of it is circumstantial. I have most of the so-called experts on Joseph Smith & polygamy & Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy is better. The worst book I own is Todd Comptoms In Sacred Lonliness which mixes fact & the authors fantasy.

Joseph Smith 3rd felt he father had been involved in multiple sealings which possibly got misrepresented as actual polygamy. James Whitehead one of Joseph Smith 3rds personal secretary's had seen D.&C. 132 original & denied it had anything with modern polygamy. So based on in Joseph Smith 3rd felt the polygamy revelation was a fake.

Todd Comptom had to re-write & leave out information in order to weaken Joseph Smith 3rds cross-examination of Melissa Lott Willes. Her sisters felt her claims to have had roomed with Joseph was a lie. One of her sisters claimed to travel to check on rumors of children had turned up nothing to make the stories believeable.

He also cites the Temple Lot case which decision gets ignored by everybody but RLDS. The testimony of the wives were disproven in court.

Here are one of things I have found to be most false in discussions I have had online about Joseph Smith Jr. & polygamy.

Joseph Smith Jr. stole other mens wives.

I feel Todd Comptom poorly documented sexuality in Joseph's plural marriages. He also confused relationships which were sealings only for earthly plural marriages. He also overstated the claim Josephine Lyons Fisher daughter of the married at the time Sylvia Sessions was the indisputeable daughter of Joseph Smith Jr. I think Joseph 3rds feelings these agreements were possibly done for the ressurection only. I happen to agree with Richard & Pamela Price that the testimony of the wives can be proven false. But they publish his interview with Melissa Lott Willes & know that some eternal marriage speculations & practices occured.

The only comment I heard from a pure Fundementalist was that he had seen pictures of some of them & they looked to have added material. I havn't seen William Clayton's diaries only popular quotes. I am open to the idea they could be faked to go along with the stories they were developing. Without a study of the ink & date of the paper I hate to admit they are authentic. The originals could have been damaged & re-done to cover the polygamists stories.

I havn't seen an baptism since probably 1991. I kind of hung out with the Fundemental RLDS since that time. June 26th they are baptizing me. My Pastor is a woman. I have moderated a bit & describe myself as a partial Fundementalist. I agree with the Fundementalists that the leadership has made mistakes. The homo-sexual endorsement idea in the Community of Christ is a curse to the church. I prefer a conservative message along with my contemporary worship. By conservative I mean nothing to liberal or nothing to Fundemental.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Jason]

Dale,

My central argument is that I find it very difficult to believe that Brigham Young introduced polygamy of his own accord. He spent his entire life telling everyone that he only taught what Smith taught him. This includes other things like Adam-god, Sealing men to men, and possibly blood atonement (though on a willing individual).

I don't think the bulk of LDS leadership would have gone along with the idea of inventing polygamy, unless you want to think that they were all lustful adulterers who were looking for any way to sleep with little miss good looking sitting on the front row.

[srm]

Originally posted by Jason@May 16 2005, 11:48 AM

srm

Perhaps the most compelling is the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and through him restored the Church. Why would God need to restore it if it had not been taken away AND, who would know better than God?

Of course, if it was God who appeared to Joseph Smith, then you've got a good point here. Thanks srm.

Jason, you don't count that little jab as being in conflict with your statement, "I've no intention of turning this into a debate thread"

[Traveler]

Ever since Eden man has experienced various levels (depths) of apostasy. In general we tend to think of apostasy as a state of separation from the divine. In the Last Days prior to the return of Christ to the earth a people need to be organized into a society and prepared to receive the Kingdom of the Christ. If there had been no apostasy since Jesus there would be no need for preparation. I believe history indicates that a society based on the teachings of Christ had been lost to mankind. It is my opinion that there may be individuals prepared for and ready for the Christ outside of organizations but I do not believe that there is any “church” society on the earth that is ready. To my knowledge, however, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only organization on earth taking the steps necessary for change to move from the apostasy of world society (symbolized in scripture as Babylon) to a state prepared and acceptable (symbolized in scripture as Zion and New Jerusalem) for the returning Christ.

My definition of a “true Church” is any church willing and able to absorb and change according to revelation given from heaven concerning the preparations for the establishment of Zion. The LDS church is the only church I have found susceptible to needed revelation.

The Traveler