One of my favorite Joseph Smith commentaries & from this weeks CFM

[mikbone]

Matthew 16:1-4

When I was preaching in Philadelphia, a Quaker called out for a sign, I told him to be still. After Sermon he again asked for a sign. I told the Congregation the man was an Adulterer, that a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and that the Lord had said to me in a Revelation that any man who wanted a sign was an Adulterous person “it is true” cried one “for I caught him in the very act”. which the man afterwards confessed when he was baptized.

"History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843]," p. 1466, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 15, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/109

[laronius]

22 hours ago, mikbone said:

Matthew 16:1-4

When I was preaching in Philadelphia, a Quaker called out for a sign, I told him to be still. After Sermon he again asked for a sign. I told the Congregation the man was an Adulterer, that a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and that the Lord had said to me in a Revelation that any man who wanted a sign was an Adulterous person “it is true” cried one “for I caught him in the very act”. which the man afterwards confessed when he was baptized.

"History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843]," p. 1466, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 15, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/109

I have wondered about this connection. Is it always to be taken literally?

[Vort]

My understanding is that the Bible often uses the term "adulterous" to describe those who break their sacred covenants. I suppose this is a figurative usage. But if you consider it to be one of the intrinsic meanings of the term "adulterous", and thus in a sense literal, you could make the argument that such statements may be literally true.  Only a faithless, covenant-breaking generation would insist on a sign to prove things that they should exercise faith to believe in and understand.

[mikbone]

Generally, I'm not comfortable calling people adulterous.

In both Joseph Smith's and Matthew's examples it was a religious 'expert' that was trying to catch the Lord or his servant in a difficult situation. 

Not a wise choice.

Miracles and Signs are many times used interchangeably in the scriptures.

Miracles follow faith and not the other way around.

Curiously though, when you look closely at Joseph Smith story.  The Quaker in question was eventually batpized.  

And the forgiveness of sin is the greatest miracle that the Lord ever performed.  

Edited April 17, 2023 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

The lawyer-pedant in me wants to distinguish between “adulterous person” and “adulterer”; and further wonders whether there’s a meaningful distinction, at the end of the day, between adultery and fornication.

From what statistical surveys I am aware of, in this day and age you could accuse pretty much any random non-Christian (and a solid majority, perhaps even a supermajority of Christians) of having fornicated at some point in their lives, and you’d be right.  And that’s not even counting porn use.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

wonders whether there’s a meaningful distinction, at the end of the day, between adultery and fornication.

It strikes me the distinction is tremendous. But there is a link to the two ideas related to infidelity that have meaning.

That being said, I remember when I was younger having two friends, good people, but who had to marry outside the temple because they got caught up in fornication temptations. Ultimately, after many failures to avoid it for the required amount of time to become worthy to marry in the temple, the decision was made to marry civilly so they didn't have to avoid it, and then be sealed in the temple a year later. They did so, and have been happily, faithfully, eternally married for decades since. They raised their family in the gospel, serve faithfully, have been true, etc., etc.

Obviously it would have been better to have done it right. I remember attending their non temple wedding and feeling like it was such a terrible thing. Now I look back at it.... differently. In the end...due to the choices they made moving forward...it can be argued that ultimately no harm was really done*. But it cannot be argued that the potential for harm was huge. But I just don't know if the same can ever be said of the theoretical adulterous situation.

*I'm not sure this argument would be correct. I'm just positing that the argument could be made. But either way, I'd say the harm from this situation was distinctly lesser than what would come from an adulterous foray.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I remember attending their non temple wedding and feeling like it was such a terrible thing. Now I look back at it.... differently. In the end...due to the choices they made moving forward...it can be argued that ultimately no harm was really done*.

As Paul taught: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled..." (Note the American spelling. Very important.)

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

(Note the American spelling. Very important.)

Can you explain? 

[Vort]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Can you explain? 

I was being funny. The American spelling is of no importance whatsoever.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I was being funny. The American spelling is of no importance whatsoever.

Apparently I ruined the joke by...not getting it.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Apparently I ruined the joke by...not getting it.

That's okay, because it wasn't really very funny anyway.