Does the spirit testify of understanding, or of words?

[Fether]

This is a belief that I have had but have only recently been able to put it into words.

When someone learns that Joseph Smith has multiple wives, many first reactions are “OMGoodness, he was an evil manipulative man and is clearly not a Prophet.” They feel sick about to and turn from the church.

In that moment, the person’s understanding (which is greatly incomplete of the reality of the entire situation) is that Joseph manipulates his people to satisfy his sex cravings. Though the initial statement is correct, Joseph smith eas married to multiple women, The spirit will not testify to this because the individual’s understanding Grossly inaccurate.

Similarly, I heard someone explain that at one point in their life they testified if JS’s monogamy. In doing so he felt a rush of the spirit testify of the truthfulness of his testimony. In reality however, his words were wrong, but perhaps his understanding was that “Joseph Smith’s marital relationship(s) were ordained of God and did nothing wrong” hence why the spirit testified of the words he spoke, because his meaning behind them were true, he was not a sex craved con artist, but a prophet living the laws of God as directed. 

Similarly when someone bears their testimony of a sure knowledge of the truthfulness of the gospel and the spirit enters our hearts, perhaps it is the meaning we put behind the words that is being confirmed by the spirit, not that the individual has spoken with God face to face and knows for sure the truth fullness of the gospel.

2 Nephi 31:3 teaches God speaks to us in our own language and understanding. Could this back what I’ve said?

Thoughts?

 

 

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

When someone learns that Joseph Smith has multiple wives, many first reactions are “OMGoodness, he was an evil manipulative man and is clearly not a Prophet.” They feel sick about to and turn from the church.

 

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Thoughts?

In my own experience in talking to non-LDS Christians, including on forums (for several years I used to talk about/defend our Church on Christian forums such as CARM), most really don't have that big of a problem with the polygamy itself.

It is the age of the wives (Joseph Smith married girls as young as 14, other church leaders married and had children with girls of similar ages) and the fact that some of the wives were already married to other men that bothers them.

I can understand why they would be bothered and it's hard to convince them on the subject.  This isn't that surprising since even prominent leaders and figures of the early Church (The Three Witnesses, members of the original Quorum of the Twelve, and Parley P Pratt, for example, not to mention Emma Smith) had a big problem with it and several of them left the church because of it.

According to our Church History, polygamy was meant to be a trial and it certainly was.

[Anddenex]

On 11/19/2019 at 9:32 PM, Fether said:

2 Nephi 31:3 teaches God speaks to us in our own language and understanding. Could this back what I’ve said?

Thoughts?

 

 

Yes, according to how I am understanding what you have expressed, the scripture provided gives witness to what you have said. I would also specify though that the Spirit does give witness according to our words also.

I believe, also, this is why anti-Mormon literature has brought people to the Church and to be baptized by water and by fire. It was not the words -- per-se -- as the words were meant to dissuade people from the Church. It was how they felt, a witness was given, that caused them to search more fully. It was something within their realm of "understanding" that created a desire to learn more, despite the negative spin (the finger of scorn).

Your example of polygamy, provides a good example. How they perceive, how they understand something, is what is causing a spiritual uplift or an increase in doubt. My first experience with Joseph Smith and polygamy was in my youth. It was taught. So I am not sure how others say it wasn't because that wasn't my experience/understanding. I did not know about his young wives. My first thought was, this can't be true (mind you I did not have details either), and the Spirit responded very quickly, "It is true." I have never had any conflict since then.

What I find hypocritical are those who complain about Joseph Smith, while accepting the Bible. We have a individual in the Bible who have 10 times more the wives and his concubines were at least 6 times more than his wives. I understand from some that there are varying thoughts/opinions regarding the age of marriage in the Old Testament times.

I have heard that the moment of girl began her menstrual cycle that she was considered a woman and eligible for marriage. I had a friend who started her cycle at nine years of age. I understand it is a common understanding to that women married Old Testament times between the ages of 13-18. I also understand that some say that these are inaccurate and that people were married late in their years. The first two would mean that this individual could have easily had many wives that were 15 and younger, but because we don't have the dates of their marriage and exact age they are happy to accept polygamy was part of their lives, but they don't call them false prophets or false believers. It is hypocritical to call our Joseph Smith, and then publicly quote Psalms or even the Song of Solomon.

[Guest Scott]

13 hours ago, Anddenex said:

What I find hypocritical are those who complain about Joseph Smith, while accepting the Bible. We have a individual in the Bible who have 10 times more the wives and his concubines were at least 6 times more than his wives. I understand from some that there are varying thoughts/opinions regarding the age of marriage in the Old Testament times.

I have heard that the moment of girl began her menstrual cycle that she was considered a woman and eligible for marriage. I had a friend who started her cycle at nine years of age. I understand it is a common understanding to that women married Old Testament times between the ages of 13-18.  The first two would mean that this individual could have easily had many wives that were 15 and younger, but because we don't have the dates of their marriage and exact age they are happy to accept polygamy was part of their lives, but they don't call them false prophets or false believers. It is hypocritical to call our Joseph Smith, and then publicly quote Psalms or even the Song of Solomon.

True.    In Old Testament times, according to Jewish law, girls could be married off at age 12 (the girl didn't have a choice of who she would marry).  Normal ages of marriage were somewhere between 13 and 16 years old.

It is worse than that though.    Old Testament treatment of women and girls was at least as bad of the modern day Taliban or ISIS and in some ways much worse.

In Old Testament times, girls (and they were girls rather than women by today's standards), usually between the ages of 12 to 16 could have their privates inspected before marriage to prove that they were virgins.  Although we know  in modern days that the "viginity test" isn't very accurate, in those days if the girl was deemed not a virgin by the inspection of her privates, she was brutally killed in a cruel manner.    See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

In the same chapter, if a unbetrothed virgin girl was raped, she was to marry her rapist.    See Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

A girl or woman never had the choice of who she would marry.   She was treated as property and sold or traded at will.   

Girls (they were likely very young if still virgins) were also kidnapped and raped by the Hebrews and forced to marry their perpetrators after their families were slaughtered.   See Numbers 31:9-13.

In Deuteronomy 21:10-14, laws were laid down for captive women.    After slaughtering her parents and male siblings, if a Hebrew saw a beautiful girl that he wished to marry, he could take her to his house, shave her head and give her one month to grieve for the slaughter of her parents.   He could then force her into marriage, or if she was no good at sex, throw her out ("set her free").

Since violence against women and girls was much more acceptable than violence against men,  a girl or woman would sometimes be offered up instead (Joseph Smith corrected the account of Sadom and Gomorrah {which non-LDS Christians believe the Biblical account}, but see also the story in Judges 19, which is a different story).   A girl was offered up to be raped as to avoid violence against a man).   The girl was raped all night and into the morning by various men.  She died from her injuries.   See Judges 19:22-28.

According to the Old Testament, the men from the tribe of Benjamin obtained their wives as follows:

When the Benjamites slaughtered the families or the surrounding people (whom were usually peaceful), they only had a limited number (400) of virgin girls to force into marriage.   Since that was not enough wives, the kidnapped girls on their way to the festival in Shiloh by hiding in the bushes.  See Judges 21:10-23.

Christians like to dance around, explain away, or ignore the extreme (mis)treatment of women in Biblical times.

 

 

[Vort]

So much with this post that simply isn't quite right. it's a thoroughly modernist viewpoint, and actively avoids taking any cultural nuance into account.

2 hours ago, Scott said:

True.    In Old Testament times, according to Jewish law, girls could be married off at age 12 (the girl didn't have a choice of who she would marry).  Normal ages of marriage were somewhere between 13 and 16 years old.

I believe this is simply incorrect. I don't believe that Hebrew law ever allowed a girl to be forced to marry; I see nothing of the sort in the Bible. That's not to say there weren't societal constraints, but the typical ancient Hebrew father didn't consider his daughter mere chattel. Men loved their daughters and cared for them, not unlike modern fathers.

Quote

It is worse than that though.    Old Testament treatment of women and girls was at least as bad of the modern day Taliban or ISIS and in some ways much worse.

A meaningless, overly broad charge. The "worse than that" alone is proof positive of an unabashedly modernist viewpoint.

Quote

In Old Testament times, girls (and they were girls rather than women by today's standards), usually between the ages of 12 to 16 could have their privates inspected before marriage to prove that they were virgins.  Although we know  in modern days that the "viginity test" isn't very accurate, in those days if the girl was deemed not a virgin by the inspection of her privates, she was brutally killed in a cruel manner.    See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

Another falsehood. A woman found guilty of adultery was indeed executed, but this was not as simple as your above quotation or scriptural reference imply. And to suggest that women were often executed for adultery is absurd. A simple reading of the Bible will show that prostitution was common and even accepted in Israel. if your implications above were correct, no sane, non-suicidal woman would ever engage in adultery unless she literally had no other option for survival.

As for your claims about the "virginity test", I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you're talking about hymen inspection, most virginal girls and women do indeed have an intact or at least well-developed hymen; the ruptured hymen that is supposedly rampantly common among young women is not in reality all that common. Besides, the "virginity tests" referred to in your quoted verses didn't have to do with hymens, since that would have been an almost meaningless test for a married woman.

I'm no great fan of how women were viewed or treated historically. But then, I'm no great fan of how men were viewed or treated historically, either. I'm a 21st-century American, and that's the lens through which I view reality. But I'm also not naive enough to suppose that my viewpoint is The One True Viewpoint, or that the ancients were uncivilized savages because they didn't think like I do.

Quote

In the same chapter, if a unbetrothed virgin girl was raped, she was to marry her rapist.    See Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Another backward assertion that ignores the societal realities of the day. The raped girl had the right to marry her rapist; he couldn't refuse her, and he could never divorce her. Thus, she was assured of being taken care of to some degree at least, rather than be viewed as "damaged goods" and thus be doomed never to marry or have children. If she didn't want to marry the guy, I bet she wasn't forced to do so.

Quote

A girl or woman never had the choice of who she would marry.   She was treated as property and sold or traded at will.

A modernist, nay feminist, interpretation.

Quote

Girls (they were likely very young if still virgins) were also kidnapped and raped by the Hebrews and forced to marry their perpetrators after their families were slaughtered.   See Numbers 31:9-13.

Ah. So you take an incident (a common practice among, oh, pretty much EVERY ANCIENT CIVILIZATION) and generalize it from that incident to the accepted way of daily life.

I notice that you don't decry the fact that the boys (young and virginal) were simply killed. Why doesn't that seem to bother you?

Quote

Christians like to dance around, explain away, or ignore the extreme (mis)treatment of women in Biblical times.

Whereas you like to pretend you're somehow more advanced, more intelligent, and more righteous than the ancients, and flaunt their supposed flaws as evidence of your superiority.

[Guest Scott]

20 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe this is simply incorrect. I don't believe that Hebrew law ever allowed a girl to be forced to marry; I see nothing of the sort in the Bible. 

Do you have an example of a woman or girl who was allowed to choose her husband in the Old Testament?

The word "forced" might not be used in the OT, but women or girls weren't given the choice of who they got to marry.  Maybe you could argue that a marriage wouldn't be forced if the woman or girl was happy with the marriage, but do you think that was always the case?

Let's start with the story of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel which is in both the Torah and Old Testament.

The KJV of Genesis 29:17 says that Leah was "tender eyed" while Rachel was beautiful.   Tender eyed according to Biblical scholars and the Torah was her description because she was always weeping because she would be forced to marry.

I'm pretty sure that you know the story.  Jacob was to work seven years for Rachel, whom was beautiful and the one he wanted.  (As said, women and girls were thought of as property, which is why Jacob had to work those years for her).   

According to Genesis 29:31, Leah was "hated" (though this probably means ignored or not favored).

Do you really think Leah wasn't forced into the marriage?  

This is just once example.   As far that is written at least, women weren't allowed to make choices when it comes to marriage.

Of course we can delve further into the OT for a lot of stories.

I'm going to cut and paste the exact verses in the next example, so there is no arguement or question as to what I am referring to. 

Let's start with Deuteronomy 21:10-13:

11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

So, after slaughtering her parents, siblings (including babies and all male children, plus any girl or woman who wasn't a virgin) and taking her captive, she was to marry one of the people who slaughtered her parents and siblings?

Do you really think such a marriage wasn't forced?   Would you willingly marry someone who slaughtered your parents and siblings and who took you captive?   

Quote

Another falsehood. A woman found guilty of adultery was indeed executed, but this was not as simple as your above quotation or scriptural reference imply.

You consider the OT a "falsehood"?

Quote

And to suggest that women were often executed for adultery is absurd.

It did happen, but since the penalties were so harsh, it proabably wasn't as common as today.   This is more than has been recorded in the Bible as well.   It wasn't only Hebrew culture either, but in much of the Ancient Near and Middle East.

That said though, I hope that at least some of the ancient writings are exaggerations.  I think (and sincerely hope) that a lot of the OT is be taken with a grain of salt.  But non-LDS Christians don't take it that way.

Take this story of Sodom for example.  In Genesis 19:19-25, here is what is said:

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

JST corrects this story and says the following (there is more; this is only part of it-you can read the rest):

13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

I hope that at least some of other OT stories aren't completely accurate, just like this one that Joseph Smith pointed out.

Quote

A simple reading of the Bible will show that prostitution was common and even accepted in Israel.

Yes of course.  Since this professor summarizes it very well, I'll quote the very knowlegable Old Testament Scholar, Tracy M. Lemos:

The relationship between husbands and wives was not equal in the ancient Near East, including Israel. Ba‘al, one of the Hebrew words for “husband,” also meant “lord” or “master,” and men had life-and-death power over women in the case of adultery, which in ancient Israel involved a woman having sex outside of her marriage or a man having sex with another man’s wife. Men, though, could have multiple wives and concubines and were (sometimes) allowed to go to prostitutes, thus monogamy was a one-way street in this culture.

The above is from the OT, Torah, and other writings and cultural studies.  

Quote

if your implications above were correct, no sane, non-suicidal woman would ever engage in adultery unless she literally had no other option for survival.

Adultery happens even in societies where the penalty is death.  Stoning still happens to this day in parts of that region.

Quote

As for your claims about the "virginity test", I don't think you know what you're talking about.If you're talking about hymen inspection, most virginal girls and women do indeed have an intact or at least well-developed hymen; the ruptured hymen that is supposedly rampantly common among young women is not in reality all that common. Besides, the "virginity tests" referred to in your quoted verses didn't have to do with hymens, since that would have been an almost meaningless test for a married woman.

Yes, it was almost surely a hymen test.   Did you read all the verses?.  Parenthesis are mine.

16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid (virgin); and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity (tokens of virginity are the bloody cloth form the hymen breaking-I don't know anyone who is knowlegable about Old Testament or history disputes this). And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall merce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity (bloody cloth from the hymen breaking) be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

It is noteworthy to point out that this same "virginity test" lasted among several cultures long after the Bible was written.

Quote

or that the ancients were uncivilized savages because they didn't think like I do.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that they were uncivilized savages.  I do think that their culture was brutal, just as most of the rest of the cultures in that region were at the time.

Quote

The raped girl had the right to marry her rapist; he couldn't refuse her, and he could never divorce her.

That's a pretty sugar coated way of putting it, but OK.

Quote

Thus, she was assured of being taken care of to some degree at least, rather than be viewed as "damaged goods" and thus be doomed never to marry or have children.

I know the culture was different, but are you OK with a girl being considered "damaged goods" if she was raped?

Quote

If she didn't want to marry the guy, I bet she wasn't forced to do so.

Given the culture of the day, even if she weren't physical forced, marrying would have been almost had to have been a survival strategy for the reason above that you yourself pointed out.

Quote

A modernist, nay feminist, interpretation.

If you say so.  My sources are the OT itself and other writings from the time period.

If saying that women weren't treated as equals in the OT makes me a "feminist", so be it.

Quote

Ah. So you take an incident (a common practice among, oh, pretty much EVERY ANCIENT CIVILIZATION) and generalize it from that incident to the accepted way of daily life.

First of all, just because other civilizations were doing it doesn't mean that it was "right".

Second of all, it wasn't pretty much every ancient civilization.   It was very common among most early agricultural (including herding) civilizations, but not nearly as common among hunter and gatherer societies.

Quote

I notice that you don't decry the fact that the boys (young and virginal) were simply killed. Why doesn't that seem to bother you?

It bothers me a lot, but that's not what was being discussed was it?  Someone brought up Christians being hypocritical about Joseph Smith having a lot of wives, while ignoring all the wives and concubines (especially young ones) in the OT and I expanded on that.

PS, I am really bothered by the slaughtering of children and infants in the OT as well as human sacrifices, whether or not they were sacrificed to the Lord or not.  I just don't believe in human sacrifice.   What would that make me?   More of a modernist?   If being bothered by human sacrifice and the slaughter of women and childen bothering me makes me a modernist, so be it.

Quote

Whereas you like to pretend you're somehow more advanced, more intelligent, and more righteous than the ancients, and flaunt their supposed flaws as evidence of your superiority.

I would hope that we as a society have become at least more advanced, but alas the world is still wicked.

The world was brutal back in Biblical times, probably even more so than today, or at least since WWII.

As far as me being superior, that would be hard to say and probably wouldn't be true.   If I lived during OT times, chances are I would have behaved and believed as they did. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Scott
contiue long post

[brotherofJared]

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

On 11/19/2019 at 8:32 PM, Fether said:

This is a belief that I have had but have only recently been able to put it into words.

When someone learns that Joseph Smith has multiple wives, many first reactions are “OMGoodness, he was an evil manipulative man and is clearly not a Prophet.” They feel sick about to and turn from the church.

In that moment, the person’s understanding (which is greatly incomplete of the reality of the entire situation) is that Joseph manipulates his people to satisfy his sex cravings. Though the initial statement is correct, Joseph smith eas married to multiple women, The spirit will not testify to this because the individual’s understanding Grossly inaccurate.

Similarly, I heard someone explain that at one point in their life they testified if JS’s monogamy. In doing so he felt a rush of the spirit testify of the truthfulness of his testimony. In reality however, his words were wrong, but perhaps his understanding was that “Joseph Smith’s marital relationship(s) were ordained of God and did nothing wrong” hence why the spirit testified of the words he spoke, because his meaning behind them were true, he was not a sex craved con artist, but a prophet living the laws of God as directed. 

Similarly when someone bears their testimony of a sure knowledge of the truthfulness of the gospel and the spirit enters our hearts, perhaps it is the meaning we put behind the words that is being confirmed by the spirit, not that the individual has spoken with God face to face and knows for sure the truth fullness of the gospel.

2 Nephi 31:3 teaches God speaks to us in our own language and understanding. Could this back what I’ve said?

Thoughts?

Just some thoughts.

Based on my trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I view polygamy with mild curiosity. I can't judge Joseph Smith on today's social norms any more than I can judge Abraham. Every person's reaction to this kind of news (polygamy is only one of many issues) is going to be different. This one might not be a thorn but another one might be.

I'd have to say that one has to question, if they trust their faith, who's "understanding" they have, where did it come from? As an example, during a priesthood lesson, we were talking about the social pressure that the church puts on its members. No one else in the class seemed to take it the same way I did, but I understood these social pressures were ones like not being a single parent or not being single at all and that some people, through no fault of their own, remain single and they feel left out. I had to spell this idea out as it seemed that nearly everyone in the room was married, but the one single person was a new member, recently baptized, who took offense. After the class, he came to me and demanded to know what I meant that marriage was necessary to obtain the highest degree in heaven. 

He would only accept a word-for-word quote from the Bible. "Show me from the Bible where it says that we have to be married to be exalted in heaven". I could see that there were a lot of problems. That, as yet, this individual did not trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, so my options for appeal were limited. He's no longer active in church. Even though he appeared to accept my answers, I could see that the seed of doubt was planted.

Personally, I think it's both words and thoughts. Thoughts, like dreams, fade over time. We can remember the feeling (can you feel so now?) but the thoughts disappear. Words, on the other hand, are something that we can return to and read again and again (if we write them down when we get them or if we take the time to read the words we already have). In reading the words, we can reflect and ponder, meditate, think thoughts. 

But more important than words and thoughts is that we trust our faith and hang on when doubts arise. It is healthy to have doubts. It's normal. Normal is healthy. What isn't healthy is when we allow our doubts to dictate our reality. Doubt, if it is allowed to run wild, is the killer of hope.

My stumbling block was Brigham Young's statements about Adam and God. When I was first introduced to this subject, I believe that the church was intentionally covering up a sore spot in its history. They were intentionally deceiving me. Those were my doubts. They are not the reality. The church wasn't covering up anything. It was right there in the Journal of Discourses. There was no deception. 

So, was my understanding based on the reality of my doubts or on the reality of my faith? Both make the term "reality" an oxymoron. Perhaps the question should be, which do I trust? My doubts or my faith. Trusting one's doubts is not a safe thing to do.

[brotherofJared]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe this is simply incorrect. I don't believe that Hebrew law ever allowed a girl to be forced to marry; I see nothing of the sort in the Bible. That's not to say there weren't societal constraints, but the typical ancient Hebrew father didn't consider his daughter mere chattel. Men loved their daughters and cared for them, not unlike modern fathers.

I don't believe the OP meant "forced" marriages. I believe he meant it more along the lines of arranged marriages. A father arranging a marriage for his daughter would be thought of as a "loving and caring" thing to do for his daughter. But it does appear that women had little choice in their future husband choosing as is described in the woman and her being passed around by her dead husband's brothers. The same is true of Ruth, who chose her husband, but he went to see if any of the other kindred wanted her first before marrying her.

If you're not seeing it in the Bible, it's because you don't want to, but it's there.

[brotherofJared]

On 11/19/2019 at 11:02 PM, Scott said:

 

In my own experience in talking to non-LDS Christians, including on forums (for several years I used to talk about/defend our Church on Christian forums such as CARM), most really don't have that big of a problem with the polygamy itself.

It is the age of the wives (Joseph Smith married girls as young as 14, other church leaders married and had children with girls of similar ages) and the fact that some of the wives were already married to other men that bothers them.

I can understand why they would be bothered and it's hard to convince them on the subject.  This isn't that surprising since even prominent leaders and figures of the early Church (The Three Witnesses, members of the original Quorum of the Twelve, and Parley P Pratt, for example, not to mention Emma Smith) had a big problem with it and several of them left the church because of it.

According to our Church History, polygamy was meant to be a trial and it certainly was.

The subject isn't really about polygamy, but...

I think it being a trial was not the purpose of polygamy but, rather, polygamy is a natural result of eternal marriage. Stating it simply, if a man's wife dies and he marries again, what is to become of the first wife? Is she to be cast aside in the eternities? Life was so simple when everyone's marriage ended at death. Extending marriage beyond the grave massively complicated things.