Obviously, President Bill Clinton wasn’t the first US president to be involved in sexual shenanigans. Roughly 100 years previous to the start of President Clinton’s term, another Democrat President was involved in a sex scandal: Grover Cleveland. Unlike Clinton’s false “I did not have sex with that woman,” Cleveland instructed his staff to “Tell the truth.”
Cleveland’s supporters, like Clinton’s a century later, took a “What of it?” approach–and, like Clinton, Cleveland was elected to two terms.
During the mid-1980’s, when I was living in the Middle East, I was being worked on by a dentist who was an Evangelical Christian. After detailing to me several of Joseph Smith’s alleged sexual sins–no doubt, gleaned from anti-Mormon sources, he concluded, “How can you accept as a Prophet such a wicked man as Joseph Smith?”
My answer: “So Joseph Smith was wicked. What of it?”
While that may not have been the wisest thing I’ve ever done (He was about to drill my teeth when I said it!), it DID get his attention! 😉
I continued, “EVERYBODY is wicked–compared to God!” That is the wrong question to ask. If we were to disqualify people from serving God for various sins, NOBODY would ever be a Prophet! THe RIGHT question to ask is whether a person is willing to be used of God.” He couldn’t argue with that.
I concluded: “From my own investigation, the worst of Joseph Smith’s alleged sins comes from bad press, rather that documented wrongs.
After my teeth had been worked on, I had some questions of my own: “The Bible record is clear about how genuine Prophets and Apostles of the Lord were sinful–some quite seriously so, right?” He confirmed that fact, mentioning Isaiah’s “potty mouth” [Isaiah 6:5] and how Paul “withstood [Peter] to the face, because he was to be blamed” [Galatians 2:11].
I then asked him if any of the obviously false prophets we’ve read about in the news would be humble enough to have their sins paraded in Scripture like this–broadcast to the world. “Of course not,” replied my dental acquaintance. “They usually proudly tell us how sinless they are, while sinning up a storm!”
“Quite so,” I responded. “And if you look at the Doctrine and Covenants, hardly a Section goes by without God chewing out Joseph Smith for one sin or another. To me, that’s more like the Biblical Prophets than like Jim Jones and his ilk!”
I finished our conversation by telling him that he would have had a point if we Latter-day Saints thought that Joseph Smith were God, or our Saviour, but we don’t. Joseph Smith was only God’s messenger–like Moses or Isaiah or Peter or Paul. “Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour–no other need apply!” And I told him that the Church teaches me to treat Him as such.
I may not have gained a convert (Well, I wasn’t trying! 😉 ), but I think I gave him some food for thought. Later, our group chaplain–ordained by the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ–told me, “You’re no dummy!”
This.
I think your story illustrates what, IMHO, should be the first question of the apologist–even if the criticism is true, what implication does it have on the claim that I am trying to defend? It not only allows the apologist to pick his or her battles, it also creates an overall picture that is easier to defend because it has a basis in reality and is conceptually coherent.
So, you’re saying if Joseph Smith were an adulterer, it wouldn’t matter because God wanted him to be his prophet. Interesting.
I’m confused. Goodness matters not at all? A prophet is just some random person with a wide variety of sins, no different than any other guy, except the non-prophet one could be disfellowshipped or exed? Really? Wicked? Really?
Not just any guy. A guy willing to listen-in and act on the message.
That may or may not involve living up to your own personal checklist of top moral qualities.
Like I’ve said before, Joseph’s theology is simply better than anyone else’s. It beats the worthless nihilism of both atheism and traditional Christianity flat-out.
And that’s what I’m concerned about in this religion. Give me that, and I don’t really care if Joseph ate live kittens for breakfast.
(I’m exaggerating of course – but I’m also making a point)
Right Nate!
Moreover, many of the attacks on LDS Prophets are based on unrealistic assumptions. Not only were (and are) LDS authorities just as human as the rest of us, so were the Biblical Prophets and Apostles!
Now that I think about it, it also reveals hypocrisy among many of our critics:
Why is it OK for Isaiah to be a potty mouth, but not OK for Joseph Smith to wrestle?
Why is it OK for Abigail and Mikal to be given by God to David, but not OK for Joseph Smith to have more than one wife under God’s “exception to policy”?
Onika, I think the operative word is “were“. Moses was a violent, homicidal hothead before his Prophetic calling, and Paul–as Saul–had incited violence and held the coats of those who killed Stephen. But did either man’s past matter AFTER their accepting their calls? I don’t think so….
Hi Agnes! Even Apostles have been–and should have been disciplined if the commit serious sins like adultery. Though decidedly not perfect, I think local and general authorities do a pretty good job of policing the Church–and themselves! I really do not expect to hear about Thomas Monson “in the clinch” with anybody other than his wife! 😉
We also need to remember that we do not have much information regarding the biblical prophets, yet have thousands of pages of information on Joseph Smith’s life.
It isn’t a fair comparison, because too many people consider the Biblical prophets as infallible somehow, and then use that straw man to knock Joseph Smith down.
The issue is: did God call Joseph Smith as a prophet. If he was, then Joseph’s sins are between him and God. Our responsibility is to follow the prophet.
If we went into the past, to Moses’ time, for instance, and we saw Moses sin (didn’t circumcise his son, for instance), should we reject him? Many questioned his authority on many occasions, because they perceived Moses’ weaknesses. But God stood with the prophet, even casting leprosy upon Miriam for rebellion.
Seems like Miriam was complaining about Moses’ sexual transgressions in the form of marrying an “Ethiopian woman” (Numbers 12:1) which if I recall the story was actually Moses’ first wife, taken when still prince in Egypt. Jethro’s daughter Zipporah must then have been a second wife. Seems like sexual transgressions are a common stick used to beat prophets with. Not because they are true, but because people are quick to judge in this area, I think.
Jeremiah 23:
9 ¶ Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of the Lord, and because of the words of his holiness.
10 For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force is not right.
11 For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord.
12 Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery ways in the darkness: they shall be driven on, and fall therein: for I will bring evil upon them, even the year of their visitation, saith the Lord.
13 And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err.
14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
15 Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land.
16 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
I agree with the premise that God called him, so “what of it.” But I think it’s wise to separate truth from fiction in JS’s case. I haven’t read the thousand pages on him, and I’d kinda rather read the Cliff’s Notes.
In a really awkward moment in Sunday School recently, one sister said that she’s glad her testimony is so strong, because something like “Emma walking in on Joseph consummating his other marriages” would normally shake it. You can imagine the conversation this spurred. I couldn’t interject, because I don’t know if this is true.
I’d love to see a wiki on all Joseph’s wives/relationships, the ages of the women, and any other details that are reliably documented. Then we can truly ask “what of it.”
The thing that bugs me about the sexual stuff is that it’s a pretty serious category of sin. And the whole idea that polygamy is a really convenient way of getting yourself some action on the side. As a man, I know if I were given the choice of commandments I could freely violate, it would be a no-brainer. I personally have a testimony that Polygamy was a commandment from God, but I just want to be certain that Joseph didn’t abuse the, for lack of a better word, privilege (yes, I know polygamy wasn’t a cake walk).
The bottom line is that 2+2=4 even if a really awful man who kicks little puppies is the guy who says so.
And in the event (which heaven forbid!) I should ever be caught in flagrante with multiple Laker Girls, that doesn’t make it any less true that family men ought not to do that kind of thing. My hypocrisy discredits *me* — not my principles.
So as a general rule: no, Joseph’s personal conduct or character isn’t determinative of whether he was a prophet or not.
The fly in this ointment, of course, is the LDS tradition that sin removes a person from the presence of God, and makes him unable to sense the still, small communication of the Spirit. So if Joseph were engaged in truly gross wickedness, we might conclude that this would have made him incapable of receiving true revelation, and conclude further that the revelations he purportedly received while thus spiritually impaired were not true.
Of course, the charge of “gross wickedness” is far from being proven.
Seth R. — I may be misreading you, but if meant to characterize “traditional Christianity” as “worthless nihilism,” I think that may be rather strong beer for my taste.
I have no problem with the idea that God could call men for his leaders, who are human and commit sin. The problem is that on the continuum of perfection and sin, there is a wide gap between simple human error, and sexual sin. This idea is also supported by the Church today as demonstrated in discipline procedures. I have never seen or heard of an instance where a person’s membership was jeopardized by a “potty mouth”. Perhaps if it was real eggregious a person may get an interview with a Bishop, but that is about it. Protocol on the other hand for Melchizedek Priesthood holders found in adultery is usually somewhere between dishfellowship to excommunication. So writing off Joseph Smith’s “imperfections” in the abstract may seem reasonable, but giving him a break specifically for sexual indiscretions, particularly if said indiscretions were concieved through the exploitation of power and religious coercion, then that is another matter altogether. So I think the debate really falls to whether or not polygamy was a commanded practice and then that it was handled appropriately. After all, David and Solomon truly had many wives, and in none of these things did they sin, except in the case of David in Uriah, with Bathseba.
Another situation in which a person’s conduct or character would be relevant to evaluating the veracity of his prophetic claims would be whether the conduct in question was of a type commonly engaged in by charismatic religious leaders generally.
Sexual voracity does often seem to come with the charismatic religious leader territory.
Rameumpton, I would agree–with this one caveat: We should follow the Prophet–or any other local or General Authority–as he follows God.
I used to be in the military, and I found that the concept of the lawful order to be very significant. If I find counsel from a Priesthood leader to be contrary to Scripture, I can then argue the point: “Is this correct in light of [insert Scripture text or passage from CHI here]?”
Joseph Smith and other early leaders were often “feeling their way”–and, no doubt, made some mistakes. Nowadays, I think, we have more stability and less ambiguity. I DON’T expect Thomas Monson to order anybody to engage in orgies! 😉
Joseph Smith: “So, orgies aren’t on the list?”
Steven:
I agree with you re: the comparison to the UCMJ and the concept of the “lawful order.” How do you square that with the teaching in the address “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” that if we are ordered to do something wrong, we should do it anyway, and we will be blessed for our obedience (the guilt being presumably on the shoulders on the person who gave the improper order)?
Thomas Says:
Good question! I suppose that depends on a few things:
Is there something in God’s Word or the CHI that explicitly prohibits what is being asked of you? If so, you may be justified in ignoring the counsel. An exception to this, of course, is when God is changing the rule. A good example is genealogy. “All Israel was reckoned by genealogies” [I Chronicles 9:1] was the rule in ancient Israel. That was changed in New Testament times with Titus 3:9, then restored in 1836, when Elijah forwarded his keys to Joseph Smith–in accordance with the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6 [See D&C 110:13-15].
If there is nothing either prohibiting or allowing an action, you may be on weaker ground here, as many people take the view that whatever isn’t prohibited is permitted–and when told to do it by a Priesthood leader, this comes close to a command to do it.
Related to God changing the rules is the “exception to policy.” God explicitly told Abraham that he would not be requiring human sacrifices–this is so in the Books of Genesis and Abraham. Yet, that is EXACTLY what God required when He asked for Isaac. By the by, my understanding of the plural marriage issue is that it was also an exception to policy–meant only for a minority of members.
Note that President Benson–and other Prophets counseled us to pray about such counsel. There may be nothing prohibiting that counsel, or this may be an exception to policy, or this may even be the result in a rule change. The goal is to find out what God wants done.
Incidentally, there is a UCMJ parallel to guilt being laid on those who issue unlawful orders. They are punished as if they had done the crime, and they are also subject to additional penalties.
Do I make sense?
David is a good example; he was called of God and favored. He sinned a serious sin, and what happened? Terrible things happened to him and his family; he was cursed even though he repented.
Tossman,
This should be a good start in helping answer your questions:
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy
Isn’t it true that most great men are bundles of contradictions, have dark sides, often disappoint? It probably says more about us, then, than them that we are willing to forgive some but not others. In my old age, I’ve decided to let God deal with the King David’s of the world; I just need to worry about myself.
Tossman wrote: “The thing that bugs me about the sexual stuff is that it’s a pretty serious category of sin. And the whole idea that polygamy is a really convenient way of getting yourself some action on the side.”
Actually, no it wasn’t convenient. It wasn’t publicly known in Nauvoo, Joseph had to hide it, it made Emma furious, and it created lots of enemies for Joseph. It directly led to his death. Clearly, polygamy was more trouble than fun.
Second, you have many witnesses of those involved, where Joseph encouraged them to get their own revelation regarding it, and they did.
If he just wanted sex, wouldn’t a few quiet illicit affairs on some trips outside of town made more sense? You get the sex, without all the trappings and problems of marriage. Many men in his day were doing it, including several LDS leaders who were excommunicated for it. If Joseph was just in it for the sex, then polygamy did not have to be a part of the gospel.
And it wasn’t any easier in Utah, where hundreds of men were imprisoned or fled for living it.
I think Ray’s sentiment is healthiest.
It isn’t just “great men” who are contradictions with light and dark sides, though; it is EVERYBODY.
Onika:
Joseph Smith got his share of feeling God’s displeasure–just as David did (though for somewhat different reasons–I am unaware of any incident where Smith bedded a subordinates wife and issued a contract to off that poor subordinate!)
The point is that if a leader (“Lord’s anointed”) is wicked, that doesn’t mean we must blindly follow him. We are accountable for what we know. I don’t believe you can blame it on the leader when he commands you to do something you know is wrong, including in the military. He isn’t God (God spoke directly with Abraham); he is just supposed to represent God and that means he would have to be living a righteous life, otherwise he is no true representative.
Rameumptom, I get what you’re saying. I realize polygamy didn’t end up being the fun fest that our critics often make it out to be. Playing devil’s advocate, though, I think you could make the argument that polygamy was a way (perhaps an ill thought out way, but a way nonetheless) to get some action on the side within the parameters of “revealed doctrine.”
Again, I have a testimony that this isn’t the case. (By the way, Trevor, thanks for linking to that wiki). I guess my point is that for such a controversial point, it would have been nice to have clear-cut documentation on what happened, with whom, and when. I mean, a doctrine that played a huge role in Joseph’s martyrdom and Emma’s disaffection from the church seems like it deserves less of a shady recount.
For the record, even though I have a testimony of the restored gospel, this whole matter casts a negative light on JS for me- and that’s probably not fair. Most thoughtful members understand that Joseph wasn’t perfect and even appreciate those imperfections. It makes me sad to say that when I meet him on the other side, before I hug him or shake his hand, I’ll probably tell him he’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.
Read Jeremiah 23 again and don’t take it out of context. Jeremiah was talking about Jewish prophets who spoke for the god Baal. He was not talking about God’s prophets.
Onika and ADW:
Does Jeremiah 23 apply to Joseph Smith at all? If so, how?
If not why not?
ADW, I don’t agree. These were God’s prophets who were supposed to speak for him, but spoke for themselves instead, leading the people astray:
Jeremiah 23:
1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.
2 Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.
16 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.
The shepherds are the prophets. They had the responsibility to feed the flock, but fed themselves instead:
Ezekiel 34:
2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.
4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.
5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.
6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them.
7 ¶ Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;
8 As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;
9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;
10 Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
11 ¶ For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.
12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.
Jeremiah 50:
6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.
Onika, does this apply to Joseph Smith? Why or why not?
Yes, it shows that prophets can lead people astray and God condemns them. He doesn’t overlook their sins and favor them because they were his elect, chosen, anointed. He expects them to set a righteous example for the rest of us.
The message of Joseph could only be true if he were righteous when he gave it.
Onika:
Here’s the $64 question: Was Joseph Smith leading people astray with polygamy, or was it a legitimate “exception to policy”?
I say the latter. What say you?
I believe that polygamy was a legitimate “exception to policy” but I won’t be surprised if we discover in the hereafter that Joseph abused the commandment (or at least if we find out some of his marriages were done completely out of lust, now that he had the green light)
If that is the case, it only delegitimizes any doctrine that may have come from Joseph after the point of abuse. The rest of the restored gospel would not have been tainted. This is why I think one could have a full testimony of the gospel and still believe Joseph fell from grace.
Again, I don’t automatically believe that Joseph abused a legitimate doctrine, but I won’t be surprised if I find out later that he did.
I don’t know very much about the details but do we have any descendent children of Joseph’s accept from Emma?
Steven Said: “So Joseph Smith was wicked. What of it?” You’ve got to be kidding me??? You can’t be serious??? To take your logic to an extreme example, would you feel the same were I to say “So Adolf Hitler was wicked. What of it?” Of course not, BECAUSE it’s a ridiculous argument… his wickedness does matter.
Now before everyone starts to pile on me, I’m NOT suggesting that Joseph Smith was Adolf Hitler by any means…but at what point Steven, on your “tolerance for sin spectrum” DOES IT MATTER??? This is how you defend Joseph Smith by minimizing his wickedness.
To be fair with you, I understand that you are using an apologetic parlor trick to mitigate Joseph’s wickedness but do you really want to justify it? And it begs the question … Why don’t Joseph’s character flaws matter? Why can’t these flaws be a window to his soul, to his motivations?
If you accept the proposition that Joseph Smith was wicked (and it appears that you have accepted this proposition) why doesn’t it matter??? Why shouldn’t someone investigating the church be concerned with his (your word) wicked(ness)?
Were Joseph Smith alive today…and were he to stand before a church court…would he find this same tolerance for his wickedness that you are affording him? I rather doubt it.
I understand that in light of reality that the church and its apologetic arm must bring Joseph Smith down from the pedestal that his image has enjoyed for decades…if for no other reason than to inoculate its membership. But if NOTHING matters…then there is little point to the religion that you claim to be true. If Joseph’s wickedness is inconsequential to his claims and character…. If Mormon apologetics must somehow justify his behavior to the point of claiming that it doesn’t matter…then Mormonism is far worse off than I would have ever surmised.
I may be wrong but i don’t think Steve was saying Joseph was “Wicked” anymore than other righteous men are “wicked”. We all have to deal with the human condition. The question is whiter Joseph was commanded by the Lord in the area of polygamy. Everyone has character flaws. I would love to trade my character flaws for Joseph’s.
I look forward to Steven himself clearing this up…but to quote Steven, he said “…After detailing to me several of Joseph Smith’s alleged sexual sins–no doubt, gleaned from anti-Mormon sources, he concluded, “How can you accept as a Prophet such a wicked man as Joseph Smith?”
My answer: “So Joseph Smith was wicked. What of it?”
Correct me if I am misunderstanding something…but to me Steven was agreeing with his dentist’s premis that Joseph was wicked.
This discussion reminds me of something a convert to the Church once told me:
That statement cuts to the heart of the issue: Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? I can answer that question by studying the Book of Mormon and by applying the test given in Moroni 10.
In contrast, there is no way for me to know from the meagre historical record what sins, if any, Joseph Smith may have committed in practicing plural marriage. The truth is, only Joseph and his wives know what transpired between them; and they are no longer available to question on the matter.
To the question, “How can you accept as a Prophet such a wicked man as Joseph Smith?” I would respond as follows:
I would then detail my reasons for believing Joseph was a prophet. If I had time—and my questioner were interested—I would outline my reasons for doubting some of the things that have been written about Joseph Smith.
P.K., if a spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon’s truth in the manner set forth in Moroni 10:4 was something truly clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable, then yes, that could render all other considerations irrelevant.
But the witness described by many faithful members (including some who post here) is often described as something much more subtle. It is described as sensations or experiences that a person ultimately must choose to exercise faith to identify as supernatural, spiritual communications.
In the case of these subtle, and potentially ambiguous, spiritual evidences, they can of course be included in the case for Joseph Smith as a prophet. But they, standing alone, are not case-closing evidence. If they are not absolutely unambiguous and unmistakeable, other evidence — such as whether Joseph Smith’s conduct was consistent, under the doctrines of the very church he founded, with his remaining in such a spiritual state that he could reasonably be expected to be capable of receiving communications by the Spirit.
After all, we teach that something as (relatively*) innocuous as looking at pornography can “grieve” the Spirit, and cause it to withdraw. If that’s true, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that if (assuming for the sake of argument) Joseph invented the polygamy doctrine out of whole cloth solely to get some gospel-sanctioned extramarital sex, he would similarly have been rendered unable to recognize the voice of the Spirit?
That’s why I think the premise of Steven’s well-argued post ultimately fails. You can’t just demur to the other side’s argument, and say that even if everything they said were true, Joseph was still a true prophet — not unless we chuck the doctrine that personal wickedness causes loss of the Spirit.
*”Relatively,” when compared to actual adultery, abuse, murder, etc. Pornography is of course absolutely destructive spiritually.
Steve G. — I wouldn’t even say that the only alternatives are “Joseph was commanded of God to institute polygamy” and “Joseph was a wicked lecher.”
A third alternative is that Joseph believed, in good faith, that the Restitution of All Things, including (as he saw it) a restoration of the religious practices of the Genesis patriarchs, required the restoration of their marriage practices.
In other words, there is an adjective that falls between “religiously infallible” and “wicked.” The word is “mistaken.”
Thomas wrote,
What other evidence do you have in mind? Can you possibly have “unambiguous and unmistakeable” evidence that would allow you to judge Joseph Smith’s spiritual state? It seems to me that the only way you can know such a thing is if God tells you.
I will repeat what I said before:
The evidence of history is ambiguous and provisional. None of us knew Joseph Smith personally; none of us has had the opportunity to observe his actions firsthand. Hence we have to rely on the reports of those who were there.
The problem is, those who were there are not talking. In most cases, neither Joseph nor his plural wives said much about happened between them in private. We cannot even be sure of how many plural marriages there were, much less how Joseph treated his plural wives.
Even the reports of Joseph Smith’s public behavior are inconsistent. Those who believed him to be a prophet tended to describe him as a great man of God. Those who did not believe him to be a prophet tended to describe him as a scoundrel. Which do we believe?
Steven Danderson,
First, I don’t believe Joseph practiced polygamy the way it is described in section 132. It says the wives should be virgins, and it intimates that the maximum is ten. For some reason Emma thought Brigham Young gave Joseph the idea of polygamy.
Other problems I see with section 132 is that it is not a commandment for the men to practice, but the for the women to accept if her husband wants to practice it. Abraham and Jacob were not commanded to practice it; it was their wives’ idea. David and Solomon were condemned in the OT for so many wives.
So, I think it is possible that Joseph could have been a true prophet in the beginning and fell with the doctrine of polygamy, just like David and Solomon fell. The next step is to determine if the Book of Mormon is true. I have doubts about it because the doctrine is too much like NT and different than D&C. Sorry.
PK:
Those who believed [Muhammad] to be a prophet tended to describe him as a great man of God. Those who did not believe him to be a prophet tended to describe him as a scoundrel. Which do we believe?
Same analysis holds with whomever you write into the blank.
What I am saying, is that *unless* your Moroni 10:4 witness was absolutely unambiguous and unmistakable (and I do not know what such a thing would be like), then it is just one more piece of evidence, entitled to more or less equal weight with all the other ambiguous and mistakable evidence, such as the murky historical documentation of Joseph’s personal history.
Revelation is inseparable from reason. We depend in part on rational logic to determine whether or not we have, in fact, received revelation. For example, missionaries have to *teach* people to recognize the Spirit. It doesn’t come automatically. People have to be *taught* that when they feel sensations of peace, warmth, “pure intelligence,” etc., those experiences constitute divine communications. They do not necessarily leap automatically to those conclusions without being carefully taught.
The fact that the evidence is often ambiguous, does not give us license to simply throw up our hands and declare ourselves entitled to believe anything we choose. With the one exception of an overwhelming, unmistakable, sui generis spiritual revelation that removes all possibility of misidentification or misinterpretation, the evidence is always incomplete, and the theoretical possibility of error is always there — both in the evaluation of physical evidence, and in the interpretation of spiritual promptings. That’s the hand we were dealt; we just have to make the best of it, doing our best to follow the right as God gives us to see the right.
Actually, Thomas, there was a First Presidency letter, dated 15 February 1978, to the effect that Muhammed (PBUH) and others were called of God to teach people at least a PORTION of the Gospel.
Thus, I have no problem honouring Muhammed (PBUH)–and treating the Quran as D&C 91 instructs us to treat the Apocrypha.
Cr@ig P@xton:
While you are right that I admitted that Joseph Smith was wicked, I must also advise you that you are missing something….
Actually, two things:
1. I explicitly stated that it was in comparison to God that Joseph Smith was wicked. Joseph Smith, you, I, and the rest of “natural” mortal humanity have all sinned; The Lord Jesus Christ–God, on the other hand, did not. If this type of wickedness disqualifies one from being God’s agent, then this qualification would include not every Protestant and Catholic and other Pastors/Priests/religious leaders, it would disqualify every genuine Prophet and Apostle and Priest in the Bible.
Unless, of course, you insist on a double standard! 😉
2. I also told my Evangelical dentist acquaintance (and posted above) that most of the sins attributed to Joseph Smith was more likely the result of “bad press” than an actual wrong-doing on his part. Let’s not damn him before we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt! 😉
Sadly, this is what many anti-Mormons want us to do! 🙁
Onika and others:
Before we convict Joseph Smith of evil in his practise of polygamy, I would suggest reading this article by my FAIR colleague, Greg Smith:
http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf
I would also suggest that there are other, Scriptural reasons for LDS plural marriage, besides what’s listed in D&C 132. For example, I find nothing exempting married men from requirements of the “Law of the Husband’s Brother” in Deuteronomy 25. While the LDS reading of that Law may be overly expansive as it is written, I think there is some precedent. Boaz married Ruth, even though he was NOT her brother-in-law (See Ruth 4.).
Steven Danderson,
I don’t think polygamy is evil if the all parties involved want to practice it. What I object to is that anyone who doesn’t want it be required to live it in order to be exalted. I think a monogamous marriage should be enough to fill the requirement and commandment of multiplying and replenishing the earth.
The purpose of the law in Deut. 25 was to ensure the dead brother had an heir. The son of the living brother was was given the name of the dead brother:
Deut. 25:
6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
Boaz married Ruth because she did not have a brother-in-law alive, so the responsibility was to the next of kin. Her next of kin refused because he was worried it would cause him to lose his inheritance (Ruth 4:6). Boaz was the next in line. He took on the responsibility of taking care of her and Naomi. (Notice he was an older man and Ruth wanted to marry him):
Ruth 3:
9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.
10 And he said, Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich.
11 And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.
12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
13 Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the apart of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman’s part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the Lord liveth: lie down until the morning.
Steven: I’m familiar with the 1978 letter. I wonder how it can be squared with other LDS doctrines.
Either Mohammed was visited by the angel Gabriel, who instructed him to “Recite” the Koran (which denies the divinity of Christ, as well as teaching many other doctrines contrary to the true gospel), or he did not.
“Each of us has to face the matter — either [Islam] is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is either the [Ummah] of God, or it is nothing.”
Unless we apply a double standard, how is this not the case if *our* Church is either all or nothing?
We *all* receive “a portion of God’s light,” in the sense that every man that comes into the world has access to the Light of Christ. (See D&C 93:2, John 1:9.) So we ought to expect that *every* religious movement should contain at least *some* divine truth; it would take a truly gifted evil genius to purge his message of goodness altogether. Likewise, even the LDS Church’s message has contained a mixture of gospel truth and human speculation, based on temporarily limited light and knowledge.
The critical issue is the extent to which truth is mixed with error. I think we do pretty well in that department.
Thomas wrote,
I doubt that any witness can ever be “absolutely unambiguous and unmistakable.” Fallible humans can always find room for doubt. (Or at least I can—hence I tend to be a fallibilist.)
Nevertheless, that does not mean that all forms of evidence are deserving of equal weight. In my view, a personal witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true outweighs the opinions of all the scholars who have ever written on the subject.
Of course, those who have not received a spiritual witness have to rely on other (in my view inferior) sources. Fair-minded observers would survey all of the evidence and acknowledge that both good and evil have been spoken of Joseph Smith, and it may be impossible to know what is true. They would not convict a man without a fair hearing.
Which indeed? As others have pointed out, prominent Latter-day Saints have spoken favorably of Muhammad. (I seem to recall that B. H. Roberts even referred to him as a prophet.)
I do not know whether Muhammad was a man of God or a scoundrel. I do know that some zealots rail against Muhammad the same way they rail against Joseph Smith.
I have been told that both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were guilty of fraud, adultery, child molestation and murder. (Thus far, no one has named anyone whom Joseph is supposed to have molested or murdered.) It seems that no charge against either man is too lurid to be repeated. And those who believe the testimony of either man are denounced as stupid, deceived, or corrupt.
That kind of bigotry is both ugly and astonishing, whether it is directed toward Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or any other religious groups. That is one reason I am reluctant to speak ill of Muhammad and his followers.
Is is possible that Gabriel visited Muhammad, as he claimed, but that the message has been garbled in transmission? It seems to me that “plain and precious things” may have been lost from the Qur’an, and that other parts may have been mistranslated, just as happened with the Bible.
PK — Now that’s a possibility re: Mohammed that I hadn’t heard before from an LDS source. Isn’t it doctrine that the ministry of angels is dependent on the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood being present, and hadn’t those keys been lost by Mohammed’s time (the 7th century)? Should we stop using the Amos scripture about there being a “famine of hearing the word of the Lord” during the Apostasy?
I suppose anything is possible, but there is absolutely no evidence, as far as I am aware, that the original Koran did not contain the passages relegating Christ to simple “prophet” status. You’d have to throw out huge sections of the book, which goes out of its way time and again to portray Christ-worshipping Christians as polytheists. This falls in the realm of “hypothetically and remotely possible, but extremely unlikely.”
For my part, I think Mohammed was like most religious revolutionaries: a conscientious man with strong ideas about God, who believed he had a unique insight into God’s nature such that his beliefs were more likely to be correct than others’. You need that kind of prophet to get a religious movement going; nobody else has the confidence.
“Fair-minded observers would survey all of the evidence and acknowledge that both good and evil have been spoken of Joseph Smith, and it may be impossible to know what is true. They would not convict a man without a fair hearing.”
Yes. Which is why the law uses the concept of statutes of limitations. Enough time passes, and the possibility of making an accurate judgment from evidence fades. So why on earth does creedal religion make one’s eternal salvation dependent on the outcome of one’s appraisal of evidence that is so aged, and ambiguous, that it wouldn’t be allowed into evidence to resolve a garden-variety contract dispute?
“In my view, a personal witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true outweighs the opinions of all the scholars who have ever written on the subject.”
Does it outweigh the conviction of a Catholic mystic who believes he has had a similar witness confirming the truth of the Catholic Church? Our bosoms may burn; they get by-jove flaming *arrows* in theirs. Whose mystical experience is more reliable, and by what objective basis can either person make that determination?
Thomas wrote,
My comments about Muhammad and the Qur’an are pure speculation on my part. I do not know enough about either to draw any firm conclusions. I do know that prominent Mormons hold Muhammad in high regard, even referring to him as a prophet. If his message disagrees with our doctrine on some points, it could be that his message has come down imperfectly to us, as I suggested.
In any case, I refuse to treat Muhammad and the Qu’ran the way some anti-Mormon critics treat Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Until I know more, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
You make an excellent point. That is why we need continuing revelation.
Since I cannot know directly what another person is thinking and feeling, I cannot judge the reliability of his mystical experiences. Nor do I feel the need to do so.
(From what little I have read of mysticism, I am not sure that the experiences mystics describe are the same as the personal revelation that Mormons describe. However, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of either kind of experience.)
Once, an argumentative critic of the Church told me that he had prayed about the Book of Mormon and received the answer that it is false. He demanded to know what I thought of that.
Well, I could not know whether he really had prayed about the Book of Mormon. Nor could I know what kind of answer he may have received. All I could say is, “My experience has been different from yours. You should do what you believe God wants you to do. Ultimately, you answer to him, not to me.”
I think the best historical evidence that can be used to disprove the scriptures are the scriptures themselves, and the only reliable evidence that can be used to prove Joseph or any other a false prophet are his own recorded accounts, and recorded accounts of those who were loyal to him or had a favorable opinion of him.
Thomas says:
There is a third way: I believe that Muhammed actually did hear from Gabriel, but what was recorded over the years was so garbled, a “definitive copy” became necessary. Muhammed was functionally illiterate most of his life, so he told others who–years later–wrote them down. The “definitive copy” (There actually are five of them; I saw the one in Istanbul.) was finished in AD 705–73 years AFTER Muhammed died.
People’s memories can get HAZY after all those years! 😛
See above. In the NCO Academy, the tech sergeants demonstrated to me–with painful effect–how garbled oral communication can become–even after just a few iterations. If we stretch that out over more than 70 years, with dozens, even hundreds or thousands of iterations, what is amazing is not that there are mistakes in transmission, but that we still have a mostly intact message.
Onika says:
Not quite accurate. Boaz was next in line after other relatives.
You will note, though, that even though Boaz was NOT the brother-in-law, he still fulfilled the “Law of the Husband’s Brother.”
I suspect that, in the case of LDS plural marriage, the Law was read even more expansively. From my angle, the Brethren actually viewed themselves as brethren, which may explain all the sealings of guys to guys. Rather than a homosexual relationship, as Quinn posits, the Brethren were sealed as BROTHERS–and thus responsible for keeping the Law of the Husband’s Brother.
But, as Dennis Miller put it, that’s just my opinion, and I could be wrong! 😉
Steven Danderson:
“Not quite accurate. Boaz was next in line after other relatives.”
That’s what I said 🙂 :
“Her next of kin refused because he was worried it would cause him to lose his inheritance (Ruth 4:6). Boaz was the next in line.”
Onika says:
Ah! I see. Thanks for straightening me out! 🙂
PK, re “doubting the authenticity” of diverse mystical experiences, I have no reason to doubt that the people who report these experiences, experienced *something.* It’s not the occurrence of the experiences, but rather their interpretation, that I must question, if the conclusions drawn from the experiences are contradictory.
Steven, re the “third way,” weren’t the keys of the ministry of angels lost during the Apostasy, until they were restored by John the Baptist? How then could Gabriel have genuinely ministered to Muhammad?
Hi Thomas!
As I understand, the keys of the ministry of angels are held through the Aaronic Priesthood, but that is not quite the same as angels occasionally ministering. Note that the angel Moroni ministered to Joseph Smith–before being ordained by John the Baptist.
Similarly, being influenced by the Holy Ghost is not the same as “the gift of the Holy Ghost,” which, as I understand, is the right to the Holy Ghost’s continual companionship.
Do I make sense?
Steven, good point re: Moroni. Hadn’t thought of that.
I do wonder, though, whether our doctrine of the Apostasy permits us to conceive of Muhammad actually receiving a revelation through Gabriel. Wasn’t it the whole point of the Apostasy that continuing revelation ceased? Even granting the possibility of continuing *personal* revelation during the Apostasy, could Muhammad have been authorized to receive revelation for others? Doesn’t that require a dispensation of the Gospel for a person to be commissioned to receive and pass on revelation?
Thomas asks:
As I understand, everybody is qualified to receive revelation for his or her jurisdiction–especially if he or she obeys the laws upon which revelation is predicated [D&C 130:20-21].
I would question, though, whether Muhammed’s [PBUH] authority extends past Arabs or Muslims.
Thomas wrote,
You say you “must question” how others interpret their personal experiences. I can think of several meanings of the verb question:
(1) To ask, inquire, or interrogate;
(2) To doubt;
(3) To challenge or dispute.
Which meaning do you have in mind?
PK:
(1) and (2). Ultimately, it’s neither here nor there to me how someone else believes. But since I am seeking the Truth, if there is a possibility that by “asking, inquring, or interrogating” a person who professes to have obtained knowledge from a source I have not been able to use, I should do so.
Two men have powerful religious experiences — a vision, a sense of peace, an unusual clarity of thought, etc. Something in each of those visions leads each man to understand them as confirmation of his comprehensive religious tradition.
The problem is, those traditions are irreconcileable. One man’s tradition declares that all the keys of the kingdom are held by a man in Salt Lake City, and the other man’s tradition declares that those same keys are held by a man in Rome. Both of those propositions cannot be true.
Absent more information, I ought to at least consider the possibility that one man or the other has interpreted his vision wrong. That’s “doubt.” I might then try to eliminate the doubt, and answer the question one way or the other, by “asking, inquiring, or interrogating” each man as to the reason he drew his conclusions. I may find that one man (in my judgment) has a better case than the other for connecting the dots between “I have received a vision” and “My exclusive religious tradition is true.”
Or maybe not — in which case I really have no fair grounds for judging between them. I then have three choices: (1) Decline to decide one way or the other (the Wittgenstein option); (2) make my judgment based on unfair, arbitrary considerations; or (3) exercising faith in a God characterized by omnipotence, justice, order, and mercy, conclude that He is not the author of such confusion, and that if he desires to communicate with us, he would use a means less susceptible to confusion.
Steven,
I would have a *very* hard time imagining that any conceivable mid-Apostasy “revelatory jurisdiction” could have extended to bringing forth a volume of scripture and founding an actual religion.
There’s only so much material inconsistent with the Gospel that you can take out of the Koran before you’re left with little more than a pamphlet. I think it’s stretching plausibility to suggest that all the heresy in the Koran was simply added by the Muslim equivalent of “designing and corrupt priests.” Likewise, I can’t imagine a God of truth, who cannot lie, commissioning an angel to command Muhammad to put the problematic stuff in there.
I have to conclude that Muhammad was no more or less inspired than any other spiritual seeker who, facing dissatisfying religious options, decided he could create a better one and did. Is it possible that, upon reflecting on his finished product, he became convinced that he could not possibly have created something so profound on his own, and that he must therefore have been inspired?
And of course, to the extent that the Koran does contain divine truth, he *was* inspired — by the Light of Christ that is given to every man. No angel needed.
Thomas says:
My guess is that Muhammed [PBUH] had as much authority to bring about the Quran as the writers of the Apocrypha had to bring those books about.
Moreover, who knew that the apostasy would last another 1,200 years? Would you discount the possibility that, if both Muhammed [PBUH] and his people were ready for a restoration, it would have happened then and there?
I personally have no problem with applying D&C 91 to the Quran, the Nag Hamadi codeces, the Bhagavad Gita, the Analects of Confucius, or any other non-LDS religious writings.
Actually, I think it would be an EXTREMELY thick pamphlet! 😉
More than just “designing and corrupt” Imams and Mullahs. Even if ALL the early eighth century followers who were there when Muhammed [PBUH] was alive in the early seventh century had no intent to deceive (Sadly, it is so problable that more than one DID intend to deceive that we may count it as virtual certainty. 🙁 ), the vagaries of human memory also make it probable beyond a reasonable doubt that they got some things wrong–especially after more than 70 years!
Like you, I doubt that God would allow lies in His Name to be set forth in Scripture. It is more likely, I think, that corrupt leaders and imperfect memories over 70+ years are the culprits.
No angel was needed. In fact, couldn’t the Book of Mormon be presented to Joseph Smith whole cloth–in English? Were angels needed to cleanse Isaiah’s potty mouth in Chapter 6?
Just because WE don’t see a need, why should God be precluded from concluding that the ministering of angels–or whatever means He chooses to use–is not the best method at that time and place?
Steven, it’s truly fascinating to see Mormons going out of their way to defend the literal reality of Muhammad’s revelation from Gabriel.
Why go to the effort? Because this is the circle that has to be squared:
1. LDS leaders have taken the position that if a person who claims to have received a prophetic vision has not, in fact, received a literal vision, he is a fraud, and any religion founded upon the fraudulently-declared vision is worthless. (At least this is said to hold true to our own religion; however, there’s been no explanation of why this should not be a universal rule.)
2. Much of Islam contradicts much of Mormonism, notwithstanding other similarities. The two faiths are fundamentally incompatible.
3. And yet LDS leaders have also — in an apparent effort to be ecumenical and tolerant — declared that Muhammad “received a portion of God’s light,” and spoken generally well of him (in contrast to evangelical condemnations).
That’s quite a rock garden to navigate. I must say the “Muhammad received a true angelic revelation, but it was subsequently corrupted by scheming mullahs” is an ingenious effort.