Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."
|
|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. The video would like to dismiss such things, but says absolutely nothing about the "historical documents" to prove that Joseph did perform healings on multiple occasions.
The video wants to dismiss the historical accounts in a simple sentence—they never refer to Joseph's healings again. This is dishonest.
To read more:
|
What do the records tell us about Joseph's ability to heal through the power of Christ?
|
|
[needs work]
Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, Matt. 9:34, Matt. 12:13-14, Matt. 12:24, Mark 3:5-6, Luke 5:17-26, Luke 6:7, Luke 14:3-4, John 7:32, John 9:13, John 11:44-50, John 12:17-19).
To read more:
|
Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."
|
|
Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors. (Joseph Smith—History 1:28However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.
To read more:
|
Was Joseph found guilty?
|
|
The video carefully avoids describing the outcome of this legal proceeding. The video apparently wants the listener to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court —after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. (And, even a false conviction is no stain on a man's character—even Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.)
But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.
In fact, the appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty, and no trial was held.
This is one more "historical document" from which the video wants to protect its viewers.
To read more:
|
Was Josiah Stowell deceived?
|
|
Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."
But, the Search for the Truth video will not tell you this part of the truth from the documents.
To read more:
|
If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?
|
|
The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims.
In fact, Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.
Would the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See Acts 23:6.)
To read more:
|
Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged…"
|
|
The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).
She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.
|
Claim: "… Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men but not for Joseph Smith."
|
|
It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet.
- Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"
Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:
- Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."
Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:
- I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side...I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.
Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it."
The critics ought to let all of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:
- I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.
If the video's producers believe Emma is an important witness, why do they not include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life, despite her struggles with plural marriage?
To read more:
|
Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer."
|
|
It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?
That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.
Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.
|
What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?
|
|
Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. The DVD producers do not, however, want viewers to hear Oliver's testimony or learn of his actions. As a lawyer, Cowdery’s integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:
- The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a “Mormon,” or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.
- Predefinição:JD1
Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.
The video also does not tell viewers that Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.
Why do they not allow the "historical record" to speak?
To read more:
|
What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?
|
|
David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.
Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:
- I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book...I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.
- —"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," Deseret News (24 March 1858).
If Whitmer was convinced that Joseph was an adulterer, why did he continue to bear witness that the record Joseph translated was true, for decades after his disaffection from the Church? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive because of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will await that information in vain.
To read more:
|
What do we know about William McLellin's witness?
|
|
McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:
- While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.
- — Andrew Jenson, Latter-Day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 4 vols., (Salt Lake City, A. Jenson History Co., 1901; reprinted Salt Lake City, Utah : Greg Kofford Books, 2003), 1:82–83. ISBN 1589580222. ISBN 1589580311. ISBN 978-1589580312
McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:
- He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.
- —Andrew Jenson, Historical Record (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson, 1888), 5:38–39.
McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that
- "he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires."
- —History of The Church, 3:91. BYU Studies link
The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.
They will not learn these facts about McLellin's behavior from the Search for the Truth video, because they do not support the its agenda.
|
What do we know about William Law's witness?
|
|
William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:
- It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.
- — Lyndon W. Cook, "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter," Brigham Young University Studies 22 no. 1 (Fall 1982), 56. off-site
Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph was a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?
William Law is also not in a position to cast stones at Joseph's moral character. Alexander Neibaur's diary recorded:
- "Mr William Law wished to be married to his wife for eternity. Mr. [Joseph] Smith said he would inquire of the Lord, [who] answered, "No," because Law was an Adulterous person. Mrs. Law wanted to know why she could not be married to Mr. Law, who said he would wound her feeling by telling her…
- —Journal of Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844, Church archives
This contemporaneous record suggests that William may have had his own moral failings, which kept him from desired blessings. Rather than repent, he sought for a reason to rebel against the teachings of Joseph Smith.
William helped publish the Nauvoo Expositor, which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
- “blood thirsty and murderous…demon…in human shape” and “a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history… one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula.”
- —Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)
To read more:
|
Claim: “In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132 outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage.”
|
|
The evidence is quite clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843.
The video also distorts the contents of D&C 132. Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of “the new and everlasting covenant” which includes marriage, since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:
- The gospel is the everlasting covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is new to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the new and everlasting covenant. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. (D&C 22:, D&C 132:6-7.) Thus celestial marriage is "a new and an everlasting covenant" (D&C 132:4) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage...
- Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 529–530. GospeLink (requires subscrip.)
The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not plural marriage, but eternal or celestial marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.
However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:
- Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D&C 132:1-28:{{{4}}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. ({s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
- Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 578. GospeLink (requires subscrip.)
The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.
To read more:
|
Question
|
|
ANSWER
To read more:
|
|
|
