Please explain this to me... I honestly don't understand

[Shell72]

When I was growing up it was never talked about. It was never mentioned, and the fact that they didn't tell the complete story makes me feel lied to. I knew about polygamy, but I didn't know about the ages of some of his brides, or that he was marrying women who were already married to other (living) men.

I was always taught that not telling the complete truth is the same as lying.

As long as you keep in your heart MountainGirl, that even if you feel humans did lie to you - God never has. Keep your relationship with Him strong.

[Shell72]

It sounds logical to me. :)

"A" comes from "B".

"B" often comes from lack of "A".

Conclusion.. "A" ultimately often comes because of lack of "A", through the means of "B".

"A" being wisdom, "B" being experience.

That's what I thought.

You either learn it the hard way or the easy way - but you are gonna learn it, is my interpretation.. LOL

[ztodd]

I can identify with everything you said!

By saying 'Joseph's wife (singular) Emma.' I feel they were lying to me and glossing over the real story.

I have stopped going to church, and I am now what I consider a "pet project" for my fellow relief society friends. I know they mean well, and I love them... they just don't understand where I am coming from. When I tried to explain myself to one of my friends, he told me I was reading "anti" material and that I was being led away by the devil himself. I had to laugh when I told him that my sources were good, and many of the facts can be checked out on the church's own websites.

Confused and Deceived... indeed.

To quote from our new Joseph Smith manual-

"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."

That's why it's not taught in our curriculum- because it's not relevant to the practices of the church today. So don't feel like the church was deceiving you- there are just more important things to learn about in church, but that doesn't mean you can't learn about things for yourself. The church isn't hiding these things from you. Just make sure to check all the original sources yourself and keep reading your scriptures and pro-mormon literature. :)

Also, keep in mind that it's more important to gain testimony of the prophets and the doctrines and try to understand the principles behind them, rather than trying to judge whether each individual case of plural marriage was the will of God or not.

[Shell72]

ztodd.. if someone felt that the very founder of the Church was not telling the truth can you understand why they would question more?

[Dale]

FAIR Wiki had an article on Brigham Young and polygamy and the Chrch's manual issue. Brigham Young and polygamy - FAIRMormon

[Elphaba]

To quote from our new Joseph Smith manual-

In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1).

Actually some members of the Quorum of the Twelve continued to practice polygamy. In 1904 Joseph F. Smith issued the "Second Manifesto," which did quell the practice. Anyone who practiced it after that was excommunicated.

Elphaba

[ztodd]

ztodd.. if someone felt that the very founder of the Church was not telling the truth can you understand why they would question more?

Sure I can. But I guess you could say that even God is not entirely truthful with us since even He hides things from us.

Look, we don't understand everything; we're not ready to understand everything; it's not being deceptive for God or His prophets to withhold certain information from us if we're not ready for it.

[Shell72]

Sure I can. But I guess you could say that even God is not entirely truthful with us since even He hides things from us.

Look, we don't understand everything; we're not ready to understand everything; it's not being deceptive for God or His prophets to withhold certain information from us if we're not ready for it.

I don't think God "hides" anything from us. I dont think His prophets would get messages if we weren't ready to hear them - just my opinon of course.

[Dale]

When I was growing up it was never talked about. It was never mentioned, and the fact that they didn't tell the complete story makes me feel lied to. I knew about polygamy, but I didn't know about the ages of some of his brides, or that he was marrying women who were already married to other (living) men.

I was always taught that not telling the complete truth is the same as lying.

Perhap's they didn't know the information, so knew nothing to pass along to you. I got baptized inspite of the information i did not get in Sunday school. And i doubt you will get every bit of difficult information taught to you in Sunday school in any denomination. Let's look at the Southern Baptist Convention. Does every SBC member know of Martin Luther's anti-Semitic comment's? Do every SBC they know he supported polygamy to some degree himself? Religion's should focus on spreading the gospel of Jesus not on putting down their foundational leader's and scripture's with the whole ugly story.

FAIR Wiki of course has an article entitled Joseph Smith's marriages to young women to place the issue in proper perspective. It's linked to on the main page. Main Page - FAIRMormon The ages of his bride's do not bother me to any degree, nor did it ever. I have no objection's to marrying young. To me as long as the parent's consent i have no problem with marrying teenager's.

----------------------

In my copy of On Behalf of Christ's Restored Gospel (Volume 1) it has a section entitled Using History to Malign Character." (pages 9-13) It's to long to quote in it's entirety, but my book cite's several comment's from Martin Luther Evangelical's and non-Evangelical's would object to today. One of which was "I confess that i cannot forbid a person to marry several wive's, for it does not contradict the scripture's."-Luther's letter's, De Wette edition (Berlin Germany: 1825) 2.549

Robert Bobbitt write's "By simply offering up a number of these quotation's in rapid succession, the reader whose prejudices are already inflamed could run wildly to a number of conclusions. Should this cause us to reject Luther's concept of sola fidei? Should we burn his translation of the New Testament? Is there any Evangelical indignation directed at Luther? More importantly, should such historical facts cause us to disregard everything Luther stood for? Coming to such rash conclusion's would be irresponsible." pg.11)

The comment is from his essay entitled Restoration Orthodoxy. I am Community of Christ/RLDS, and the book defend's more my perspective. Officially my church acknowledges Joseph Smith's involvement with polygamy. We see no reason to cast out all our scripture's just because of Joseph Smith's polygamy, polyandry, or his polygamy revelation. We don't see his Nauvoo denial's of practing polygamy, not for a long time telling Emma, Emma being hurt as reason's to not be Reorganized LDS. David and Solomon did a lot of polygamy, and God used them for his purposes. Why can't Joseph Smith be a fallen true prophet? Why can't God use Joseph Smith for his purposes also?

And what if he wasn't a fallen prophet, but God tolerated, but did not condone Joseph Smith's mistake's regarding Emma? What if Joseph Smith's denial's were tolerated, but not condoned by the Lord? What if his polygamy and polyandry was commanded by God anyway? What man find's distasteful might be allright with the Lord. "For my though's are not your thought's, neither are your ways my ways saith the Lord."-Isa.55:8 verse 9 is good to read also. This view favor's the LDS, but i am not afraid of the possibility God is right and i am wrong.

[Dale]

Emma Smith was asked to "Forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses: and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me;" Sound's to me like the Lord wanted Emma Smith to forgive Joseph Smith for not telling his wife from the start, or hurting her.

[RodAZ]

This is a very interesting Thread.

Shell72, I am an old history teacher (high school and college). I have studied and read every biography of Joseph Smith I could find, out-of-print books, even the No Man Knows My History and other books.

I was born into the church, but left it for a number of years - NOT because of Joseph's additional wives, or his statements.

We could discuss Joseph Smith, Jr. for a very LONG time. One recommendation, as with all history, there are no OBJECTIVE books or statements, only subjective. Everyone has to speak from where they stand. Consider your sources, and then consider THEIR sources.

I have read The 27th Wife (Brigham and Ann Eliza) and that is a perfect example, as other books I could site.

Yes, Joseph wasn't facing enemies when speaking about his wife, BUT, he was facing those wanting to kill him!! Others suspected him of marrying other women and were angry (see Orson Pratt and leaving the church and then coming back).

Joseph ordered, as Mayor, the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper, which was publishing gossip and lies about Joseph. The destruction of the Press was Joseph's "Treason." Get into the 19th century mindset to experience this history.

As far as Plural Marriage...Brigham said he never desired the grave until he was commanded to live it. Joseph was commanded in the early days of the Church, but waited until his final days.

YES, he did things that were wrong, but academically, in his life he demonstrated honor.

Hey, I left the church, as I said before, but I came back, regardless of the history that I had studied so intensively for years.

(BTW, the statement was made that "our courts" proved he had relations with other women. What is the reference for that?)

Questioning history and religion is GREAT, it is only way we learn to dig beneath the surface. But, please remember those website's info and other books seeking to tear down and destory feed off each other. Consider the source and the motivation of each writer and article.

Was Joseph Smith perfect? No, not by a long shot, and no mistake. I'm sure I could tell you things that happened that you didn't know, that still make me shake my head, but how do I feel about him, about Joseph Smith? I love him! I'm NO homeboy either.

I have a short, hopefully interesting page on Joseph on my site that I think you'll enjoy.

The importance of Joseph Smith

THANKS for such interesting questions. I think we all benefit.

RodAZ

[RodAZ]

Oh, another quick thing. I would say most members of the LDS church haven't read very many books on Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or on Plural Marriage.

I think that a big percentage haven't even read the Doctrine and Covenants.

Therefore, when asked in Sunday School class about whether Joseph lived plural marriage or not, of course they're going to gloss over it.

Don't let that shake your testimony. People don't KNOW, or don't want to know those kind of details. Did those people give you your testimony? No? Then they can't take it away from you.

The Church isn't based on Joseph Smith. It's not his Church!

[Iggy]

<<snip>>

Did those people give you your testimony? No? Then they can't take it away from you.

The Church isn't based on Joseph Smith. It's not his Church!

Wonderfully put - thank you!

[Elphaba]

Joseph ordered, as Mayor, the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper, which was publishing gossip and lies about Joseph.

What were the "gossip and lies about Joseph" the newspaper printed?

Use your own criteria, "Get into the 19th century mindset to experience the history," and look at it from the mindest of the authors of the Expositor.

Then answer the question. You think a group of Christians who obviously believe in the Book of Mormon, who obviously believe Joseph is a prophet but a fallen one, because they believe he is an adulterer, are not going to be heartbroken by this?

If you read the paper from that perspective, what are the gossip and lies?

The hyperbole? Pick up anything Joseph Smith wrote at the time and it will sound exactly the same.

Perspective changes everything. I'm just suggesting that you use your own criteria when not everyone agrees with your belief.

Elphaba

[tubaloth]

Wow, that is a long thread. I guess this topic still gets a lot of response.

I think I’ll try to tackle that last half of the original post. I didn’t see this point being made, but only skimmed over most of the posts.

Now, along comes Mr. Woodruff who says in 1889 that God has told him that He will protect his peoples practice of Polygamy, and then two years later in 1890 issues his manifesto telling the Mormon people to stop this.

God can take away a command when ever he chooses. There is another lesson in Mormon history about a command being given, and that command being taken away. Joseph Smith and the saints where commanded to build a “new Jerusalem” or a Zion. But as you know the persecution of the saints (because of disobedience) The saints were forced to flee.

A revelation revoking this command was given to Joseph Smith.

(Doctrine and Covenants 124:49.)

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

I don’t think anybody would doubt this logic. If the Saints do what is required of them. Then they are blessed for what they have done. I honestly don’t think Polygamy was going to stay around forever. Maybe it was cut short for who knows what reason. But the Church understands that as members following a command they do what is in there power.

First of all - If God wanted man to be polygamous, he would not change his mind.

That is kind of short sided in the sense that you assume Polygamy was always going to be around. This we don’t know one way or the other. To assume that God can’t “change” his command is not given God credit for the commandments in the first place. Also you do not understand the deeper doctrine involved. Eternal Marriage command (that kind of gets thrown in all of this) is still a command today. The requirements for Celestial Glory are still the same.

Secondly - Woodruff said God gave him a revelation that the practice would by protected - but yet he chose two years later to denounce the whole thing?

Protected? From what? Who is to know that it didn’t get protected for 2 years longer. The idea that it would be protected forever very well could be. See the scripture above. I don’t know of a time when God gave a commandment and then told his people, “well lets see how things go in a couple of years” God has always been one that the command is still in effect, or it isn’t. At this time of willford woodruff the command was still in play.

If God revealed something to someone - that is a pretty big deal, and I don't think you would denounce it publicly.

Why not? The General Conference of the church is where Church matters are presented to the church. No better place to put into effect a change in command.

And I don't understand why people would believe what Joseph Smith was saying - if it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?

I have to assume from this statement that you have analyzed everything else Joseph Smith has said. Even though you really aren’t going by Joseph Smith’s accounts, but others that have said things about Joseph Smith. The point being you are trying to find contradictions in what Joseph Smith said with what others have said. Then to assume Joseph Smith must be the one wrong (because he has more to loose). What makes one source more accurate then another?

"If it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?"

I wish I had the answer for that, because my testimony has certainly vanished since doing research... I feel lied to.

Because my testimony of Joseph Smith isn’t about Polygamy. Its about being called as a prophet. Its about did Joseph Smith tell the truth about the First Vision! Did Joseph Smith really see Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Did Joseph Smith really translate the Book of Mormon. Is the Book of Mormon a record of people that came from Jerusalem? Did Joseph Smith restore the priesthood today! I suggest you spend your time “researching” these ideas, topics. And then the key point of prayer to your Heavenly Father, if these things are true.

I have never asked God what the deal is with Polygamy. As far as I have been taught, that isn’t something for me to worry about today! It isn’t a commandment I need to live. The same reason I don’t worry about raising cattle so I can kill the first one of them. Yes we know that was a commandment that was practiced. But I’m not asking God if it was true or not?

The same holds true for me today! I worry about the things that deal with my Salvation! Meaning! Is Eternal Marriage a correct doctrine of God! (yes, and it was restored through Joseph Smith).

I do assume you have read section 132. It is a tuff section to read with not understanding what is being taught. Be do realize this is talking about Eternal Marrage, and how at times it was allowed to include Multiple wives. It really talks about being married Under the law, and outside the law.

[Mountaingirl]

To quote from our new Joseph Smith manual-

"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."

That's why it's not taught in our curriculum- because it's not relevant to the practices of the church today. So don't feel like the church was deceiving you- there are just more important things to learn about in church, but that doesn't mean you can't learn about things for yourself. The church isn't hiding these things from you. Just make sure to check all the original sources yourself and keep reading your scriptures and pro-mormon literature. :)

Also, keep in mind that it's more important to gain testimony of the prophets and the doctrines and try to understand the principles behind them, rather than trying to judge whether each individual case of plural marriage was the will of God or not.

It might not be relevant, but it's important to know what the former prophets taught... all of it. It's a part of our church's history and it's being completely glossed over because we don't agree with it anymore. I think the reason they are glossing over these issues is because it makes the former prophets seem like they made tons of mistakes and were therefore not really prophets. This would cause a lot of problems with potential converts to the church, as well as members who find they don't agree with some of the things the prophets taught. The only problem with this is that not teaching the full history isn't telling the complete truth... at least in my opinion.

If I were taught about the issues I have now while I was growing up and had calm conversations about them while I was allowed to make up my own mind I might feel differently about the church now. It's not helping anyone by keeping things buried.

[Mountaingirl]

I would also like to add one thing that is purely my opinion so take it for what it's worth:

I will be completely honest in saying that I don't know what I believe in anymore. I will be completely honest in saying that I feel that I have been misled by the people who were supposed to teach me the truth. Now that I found out the real history and the real truth including the ban on blacks holding the priesthood (this was never once mentioned to me... never!)

Many people say that when God commands you to do something, you should do it with no questions asked. If God were to come down and ask me to kill my best friend and roommate, would I? Probably not. Why would God do that? Common sense and logic tells me he wouldn't. He wouldn't do a lot of the things that he supposedly "commanded."

Again, this post will probably be picked apart and poked at, but it's just my opinion. I don't feel the ban on blacks (for example) was commanded by God, but the prophet made that decision as a man and then it was never talked about again. Some things in the church's history make me cringe.

[HiJolly]

I would also like to add one thing that is purely my opinion so take it for what it's worth:

I will be completely honest in saying that I don't know what I believe in anymore. I will be completely honest in saying that I feel that I have been misled by the people who were supposed to teach me the truth. Now that I found out the real history and the real truth including the ban on blacks holding the priesthood (this was never once mentioned to me... never!)

Many people say that when God commands you to do something, you should do it with no questions asked. If God were to come down and ask me to kill my best friend and roommate, would I? Probably not. Why would God do that? Common sense and logic tells me he wouldn't. He wouldn't do a lot of the things that he supposedly "commanded."

Again, this post will probably be picked apart and poked at, but it's just my opinion. I don't feel the ban on blacks (for example) was commanded by God, but the prophet made that decision as a man and then it was never talked about again. Some things in the church's history make me cringe.

What's curious to me is the difference in how you and I deal with exactly (apparently) the same events. I too was not told of many historical details in the Church's history. I lived the blacks & the priesthood thing, so at least that's one that didn't surprise me.

I think everyone idealizes what they grow up with, from 'mom' to 'santa clause'. We all learn to deal with it, and I daresay most people don't feel resentment at being 'lied' to. I know I have been able to deal with these things in a very peaceful, joyful way. I'm sorry you take the truth so hard. For me, I am so happy to know what has happened, and no hard feelings.

I have been working with God for many years, and He has led me through it all, leaving me a much better person. I am so grateful. What's the difference? I have no idea.

I recommend this: Why the Church is As True As the Gospel

HiJolly

[Mountaingirl]

What's curious to me is the difference in how you and I deal with exactly (apparently) the same events. I too was not told of many historical details in the Church's history. I lived the blacks & the priesthood thing, so at least that's one that didn't surprise me.

I think everyone idealizes what they grow up with, from 'mom' to 'santa clause'. We all learn to deal with it, and I daresay most people don't feel resentment at being 'lied' to. I know I have been able to deal with these things in a very peaceful, joyful way. I'm sorry you take the truth so hard. For me, I am so happy to know what has happened, and no hard feelings.

I have been working with God for many years, and He has led me through it all, leaving me a much better person. I am so grateful. What's the difference? I have no idea.

I recommend this: Why the Church is As True As the Gospel

HiJolly

I don't think I SHOULD get over it. It shouldn't have happened, and I sure don't want my future kids to have to deal with the same thing. It's definitely not the same thing as Santa Clause but I understand the analogy.

I cannot get past the racist comments past prophets, apostles, and other leaders have made. These are men of God, why would they make such comments? I talked to a missionary about this, and he told me that they were speaking as men and not for God. How do you know when they are speaking for God? How do you know?

The missionary went on to tell me that this is what the scriptures were for. If you felt the need to check on something a leader, apostle or prophet has said you should check your scriptures and pray. That is a kicker for me because what are the scriptures but a written record of prophets? It's circular logic... I just go in circles.

[Dale]

LDS feel they can clear up reputed contradiction's between plural marriage and the Bible.

Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy - FAIRMormon

Tha Nauvoo Expositor is also discussed quite a bit. Among RLDS the reliability of the three affidavit's in the Expositor William Law, Jayne Law, and Austin Cowles made has been disputed. Jame's Whithead said he was shown the same revelation prior to LDS publishing in in their D.&C. by Bishop Whitney. He said in the Temple Lot case he saw it at Winter Quarter's while staying the night with Bishop Whitney. He said when he saw the one later published in the LDS D.& C. he saw it had been altered. He substantiated the idea it had to do with no earthly polygamy in the present time. And supported the Nauvoo response to the affidavit's that it had to do with that and ancient polygamy.

I think this view can't clear Joseph Smith from the charge Joseph Smith practiced Celestial polygamy though. Emma Smith had told individual's in private that Joseph Smith own practice got misrepresented and that he was not supposed to live with his wive's in life. Joseph Smith 3rd Joseph Smith's Son later adopted this explanation himself.

William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal contradict's that explanation. Unless of course they were ever proven to be a spurious later version of an earlier journal. William Clayton was prolific enough to edit his journal's to cover up Joseph Smith's innocence of earthly polygamy. I am not saying he did that, but only that he was smart enough to do it if anyone could. But they are likely authentic though.

William Law got out a polygamy indictment that said Joseph Smith was living openly in adultury with Maria Lawrence. The church responded back that Marria Lawrence was being slandered. It was probably slander because Emma Smith got along with both her and her sister. Emma Smith was probably quite satisfied that these marriages were arrangements for the afterlife. It was only with Emily & Eliza Partridge that she reputedly had the main conflict. And with them the evidence is Joseph Smith conceded to Emma's wish and ceased practicing polygamy with them.

[Iggy]

How do you know when they are speaking for God? How do you know?

The Holy Ghost testifies of the truthfulness of what they are saying. Whether it is the Prophet, GA, Bishop, Gospel Doctrine Teacher or your Seminary Teacher.

When one lives in harmony with the gospel, scriptures, commandments, you give the Holy Ghost a clean and righteous dwelling place and thus you are "In Tuned" with the Holy Ghost and can discern the truths.

Also we are taught line upon line, precept by precept, a little here, a little there. Heavenly Father knows what we are ready for and when we are ready for it. As a child we had to crawl before we could walk, learn the alphabet before we could read, drink milk and pablum before we went on to solid foods.

[ztodd]

I cannot get past the racist comments past prophets, apostles, and other leaders have made. These are men of God, why would they make such comments?

They lived in a different time and culture, in which certain comments that sound racist to us did not sound racist to them. In their culture, blacks were still slaves and were not seen as being equal. That affected the language of everyone who lived in that time. By the standards of today, everyone who lived in the early 1800s was racist. Personally, I don't think the early church leaders were truly racist- I think they were far more tolerant than others of their time and generally understood that we all are children of God and deserving of equal freedoms. The Lord works with what he's got.. even his prophets needed to be taught and corrected throughout their lives. As a church and as a nation, we've all come a long way.

[Mountaingirl]

How do you know when they are speaking for God? How do you know?

The Holy Ghost testifies of the truthfulness of what they are saying. Whether it is the Prophet, GA, Bishop, Gospel Doctrine Teacher or your Seminary Teacher.

When one lives in harmony with the gospel, scriptures, commandments, you give the Holy Ghost a clean and righteous dwelling place and thus you are "In Tuned" with the Holy Ghost and can discern the truths.

Also we are taught line upon line, precept by precept, a little here, a little there. Heavenly Father knows what we are ready for and when we are ready for it. As a child we had to crawl before we could walk, learn the alphabet before we could read, drink milk and pablum before we went on to solid foods.

Feelings can't prove something true or false. When Brigham Young and many other made racist comments I am sure people were filled with the Holy Ghost's warm fuzzy feeling, right?

I mean, knowing that the man in front of you is a prophet, you are probably just filled with the spirit of the holy ghost just being in his presence. It would be hard to tell someone sitting next to you that you disagree with something that just came out of the prophet's mouth?

I have talked with many people about this issue, including my bishop, missionaries, and my own family members and friends... it's frustrating that no one sees my point. Warm fuzzy Holy Ghost feelings can't prove anything to me... they just can't. I get warm fuzzy feelings all the time, and sometimes when I get them it has nothing to do with church or it's teachings. How to I know which is the holy ghost and which is just a warm feeling? Again, it's circular logic to me.

Many people have said the same thing to me, and I respect it.

[Mountaingirl]

Personally, I don't think the early church leaders were truly racist- I think they were far more tolerant than others of their time and generally understood that we all are children of God and deserving of equal freedoms. The Lord works with what he's got.. even his prophets needed to be taught and corrected throughout their lives. As a church and as a nation, we've all come a long way.

I could definitely show you quotes that would change your mind... I won't unless you want me to.

If the prophet is the only person who can see and speak with (and for) God, why wouldn't he make it clear his position about racism? God wouldn't want people to suffer because of the color of their skin... He would put a stop to it immediately, at least in my opinion.

We all know now that skin color depends on where you were from originally. The closer to the equator you were, the closer to the sun. The closer to the sun you were, the darker the pigment in your skin to protect you from the sun.

The curse of Cain story is nothing short of harmful, racist, and untrue. How could a prophet of God, who speaks and talks with and for Him, say those things?

It makes no sense to me. I can't get over it no matter how hard I try.

[Shell72]

Don't let that shake your testimony. People don't KNOW, or don't want to know those kind of details. Did those people give you your testimony? No? Then they can't take it away from you.

The Church isn't based on Joseph Smith. It's not his Church!

This is what my original post was trying to convey. The entire LDS church was started because of Joseph Smith and his revelations. So if Joseph Smith is running around telling married women that God wants him to marry them, in secret, and this is not true at all - why then does everyone believe anything that he says God told him? If he is lying about one thing - then why doesn't anyone question whether or not he is lying about another?