Can anyone help answer my question?

[Dale]

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.

[Shell72]

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.

[HiJolly]

I hope I do not offend anyone by writing this - but this is my honest response to your post.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

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...

Bummer, because I believe that's exactly how He does it... That's what I get from all of scripture.

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...

<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.

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

[Dale]

Joseph Smith taught even his own revelation's needed to be tested before going to the people. He knew he could get a revelation from man, the Devil, and even God. So yes if he was wrong he could indeed write a new revelation. That earlier word would not really be the word of God though. He knew that other leader's felt he was wrong they could say so. Frederick M. Smith supposedly later got a new one that corrected the one he felt earlier was inspired. I do not know the story was true though.

I do not know who in Joseph Smith's family who you feel were not told the First Vision in it's entirety? I know of none of them who found any account of the vision contradictory?

I do not find the account's of the vision contradictory. FAIR Wiki has solution's to the often reputed contradiction's listed in Anti-Mormon writing's. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage JosephSmithtoldthetruth.com had some answer's also. Joseph Smith's account's stand's up to scrutiny, and i think his critic's have been so desperate to say he has contradicted himself that they have made a bad case against the vision.

As to Joseph Smith's polyandry i do not feel he comitted adultury with other men's wive's. With Patty Session's and Joseph Smith Todd Compton gave his opinion no sexuality was present in that marriage. I do not accept Syvia's daughter as Joseph Smith's biological, but adopted daughter so i think the same about that polyandry case also.

Mary Lightner Adam Lightner's wife said she was told to remain faithful with Adam in mortality. I see no indication she ever claimed a honey-moon with Joseph Smith. So i consider Joseph's relationship with her intended to be only platonic for mortality.

I have studied the polyandry example's and do not accuse Joseph Smith of adultury. My feeling is these were intended not to form mortal relationship's, but agreement's to or association's for world's to come. Without sexuality being substantiated the time and for eternity wording they might have used doesn't mean much. It's about as much proof of adultury as the pretend wording used in a movie or play.

What was the purpose of polyandry? I think it was so that if these men had kid's they could be spiritually adopted as Joseph Smith's kid's. It was a moral way of raising up seed without begetting the children yourself. It was quite a moral alternative to the type of polyandry people think he was engaged in.

D.&C. 132:62 prevent's taking for mortality women vowed to other men. I think the husband's of the 11 on the polyandry list were told that by Joseph Smith himself. He knew a certain type of polyandry was adultury, and knew his behavior toward's the 11 women was not adulturous. If his behavior was adulturous why include an anti-polyandry clause in a revelation? The husbands of the 11 women and wive's had a high opinion of Joseph Smith's morality.

It's probably best to start another post on polygamy where we can discuss your polygamy concern's. I have read most of the major book's and Joseph Smith and polygamy, so am not uninformed. Yet i like Joseph Smith quite a lot. I don't like polygamy, but i like Joseph Smith. I think he respected those 11 women and their husband's.

[Shell72]

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.

[Dale]

Ettie Smith was the one who claimed Prescindia Buell was uncertain who the Father was. And Todd Compton did not trust Ettie Smith's claim. Ettie Smith was reputed to mix fiction with fact. I think Ettie Smith can't be trusted. So i see her relationship with Joseph Smith as platonic. I had to look up the information in my copy of Critiquing The Critic's of Joseph Smith by Hartt Wixom. (pg.114)

You would probably have to name your 13 women. I can't think of 13 women that made such claim's. None of those women were on the polyandry list, or i would be aware of the quotation's.

Almira Johnson & Benjamin Johnson both claimed Hyrum Smith approved the new polygamy doctrine and her sealing to Joseph Smith. Yet i found out Hyrum Smith was not in the know until after she was already sealed to Joseph Smith. Todd Compton never noticed that serious problem, but included their testimony also.

Benjamin Johnson's was one of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's proof's his sister was involved with Joseph Smith. I am thinking of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? book case for women who were involved with Joseph Smith.

I think R.C. Evan's an Ex-RLDS claim Melissa Lott Willis had claimed a relationship with Joseph Smith. Todd Compton creatively edited Joseph Smith 3rd's interview with her to weaken it's effect. In the original her own sister's doubted her claim. I doubt her claim myself.

Lucy Walker was the most credible witness in the bunch. I think she was their third proof. But it's been a long time since i studied that section of the Tanner book.

As far as the vision goes FAIR Wiki is organized in section's to resolve the various contradiction's critic's point to. I used to be into Bible contradiction list's until i found out Evangelical scholar's came up with some pretty good solution's. I decided that Joseph Smith's First Vision was a victim of the same kind of bad lists.

Evidence does exist now of an 1820 Methodist Revival. The attempt to try and say Joseph Smith was referring to an 1824 event does not stand up to scrutiny. Plus witnesses recall Joseph Smith as having attended such events.

I see Joseph Smith as living where he needed in order for the First Vision to have happened.

One of the concerns is that Joseph Smith in the 1832 account does not mention anything more than he "saw the Lord." I do not think it a contradiction that make's me see the vision as untrustworthy. It's possible he just intentionally omitted the detail about seeing the Father. I have seen more scholarly answer's, but that's mine.

One basic answer i heard involved Matthew 28:5 mentioning only one angel from the Lord and John 20:12 mentioning two angels.

I am not un-aware of the issues. I have pondered these issues for year's. Polygamy was my tough subject that really bothered me. So i bought every book on the subject of early Mormon Polygamy i could get my hand's on. Over time i was no longer bothered by the issue. Polyandry only bothered me for a brief period of time. I am Community of Christ/RLDS which is very Anti-polygamy. Yet i respect Joseph Smith. I do not see the First Vision account differences as problematic.