Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Howdy hal!

    I have noticed that critics of the Church and of Joseph Smith seldom
    do much scholastic (as opposed to journalistic) research and often
    make use of broad generalizations and non sequiturs in their
    conclusions.  I have read the Book of Mormon and other scriptures 
    accepted by the Mormon church.  I have also studied books and
    pamphlets written by others that are within and outside the Church.  
    It has been my experience that when carefully scrutinized, the Church 
    and Joseph Smith come out on top.  
    
    Currently, I have ordered 'No Man Knows My History' by Fawn Brodie
    from B. Dalton's in a continued research effort.  I don't know the
    details of Joseph Smith's marriages, but careful research has so
    far not indicated to me that he is guilty of wrongdoing and has instead
    shown the opposite to be true.

    The writings of Joseph Smith literally fill volumes and have
    remarkable consistence and brilliance.  This of itself indicates to
    me that Joseph Smith was neither lazy nor stupid.  
    
    As to logic, as has been many times indicated in these notes, logical 
    consistence is found in the doctines of the Church.  However, this
    alone should not be sufficient to convince anyone of its truthfulness.
    One must study, pray, ponder, practice and so forth to be convinced.  
    I have done this for years and continue to do this and have not yet
    been disappointed by the Church.  My efforts continue to reaffirm to 
    me the truthfulness of the Church and the validity of Joseph Smith as
    a prophet of God.
    
    I hope that you might bear with us as we discuss the tenets of the
    Gospel here.  None of us pretends to be expert and we all are 
    continually learning.  If you have questions, feel free to post them.  
    Many of the questions you have posted in the previous note are
    already being dealt with in other notes.  I think you will find this
    conference pretty tolerant of all noters whether they express
    viewpoints that are for or against Mormons.
    
    Welcome to the conference!  I look forward to your continued
    participation!
    
    Steve

    I know that much that is discussed in this conference is rehashed
    over and over both inside and outside of the Mormon church.  Whereas
    I am a critic of the church I have spent much time in the study
    of it in the past, not recently.  
    
    Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" is a very good book which
    describes JS's many marriages (or near marriages).  It is possible
    to check many of the references in her book, some, however, are locked
    away in Church archieves.  The book will poses many questions most
    Mormons will push off as either unimportant or certainly could never
    happen in "my church".  I would not expect less.  One will not prove
    ones religion wrong unless some other reason exists.
    
    Another source you may consider for opposing information lay between
    the pages of documents gathered together by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
    Their document do not make the most exciting reading their
    documentation is most formidable.I found their material very difficult
    reading but it may just be me.  A story was related in the Tanner's
    "Joseph Smith and Polygamy" on page 84, about JS presenting a
    "revelation" to Nancy Hyde wife to Orson Hyde who was away on a
    mission, about becoming one of JS's wives.  To me it is adultry.
    
    I know the answers have been given:  "The Lord was testing his servant
    and/or his handmaiden."  To be very frank, it does not wash with
    me.  God don't work that way, only man does.  Look at history.
    
    Any way enjoy your investigative work.  Note the differences between
    Church History and general secular history and it ain't just because
    the seculars are the bad guys.  Continue to get both sides it can
    never hurt (well not too much, in the long run).
    
    regards
    
    hal
    
    

>    I know the answers have been given:  "The Lord was testing his servant
>    and/or his handmaiden."  To be very frank, it does not wash with
>    me.  God don't work that way, only man does.  Look at history.
    
    Actually, God has already established a precedence of testing
    the faith of His followers via commandment (Genesis 22:1-19) and 
    allowing personal trial (Job).  He can 'change His mind' (albeit
    a planned change) as happened during Christ's day.  The Lord was
    sent to the Jews and only occasionally made the blessings of the
    Gospel available to the Gentiles.  It was only after Christ's death 
    that the Gospel was made generally available to Gentiles by 
    commandment.  Though I've not yet read the other references, I find
    the concept of a trial of faith by commandment a possibility ...
    part of keeping an open mind, dontcha' know :-).
    
    Steve

    If God knows us all,why would he need to test us?He would know exactly
    what we would do.
    
    I believe in free agency,that,we test ourselves by our own decisions
    and choices,and,thereby growing or not in spirituality.
    
    We must all grow in our own way,each of us individually.One of the
    roadblocks is narrow mindedness.There is so much to learn,dont limit
    yourself.We need to be open to new ideas and beliefs.We can learn
    so much from each other,and,share in the richness.A key to real
    peace in the world,is,knowing we are all one family.We are all Gods
    children.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

	I'm not really sure what the point of this note is.  Can
	someone give me a clue ?  Is there a complaint because we
	attempt to defend our beliefs when they are criticized ?

	What I infer from the base note is this:  the author finds
	nothing in the Mormon church which is of value to him.  He
	has read some very one-sided views of the Church, and agrees
	with what positions were made therein.  He is suggesting that
	we give up trying to defend our position.

	When I investigated the Church, I spent about as much time
	reading anti-Mormon literature as well as Church literature.
	It raised a lot of questions in my mind, some of which I haven't
	answered today.  However, I also recognized that they authors
	almost invariably had very strong negative feelings against the
	Church, some to the point of hatred.  They had no intent of being
	impartial, and they often, though not always, distorted the "facts."

	The purpose of this conference isn't to convert people to the
	Church.  However, I do think that the pure in heart will not be
	looking to destroy this, or any other, Church.  I have found in my
	life those in and out of the Church who are constantly seeking to
	belittle and demean others, including their beliefs.  I have found
	others, in and out of the Church, who uplift and bring closer to
	God those about them.  I have strong feelings about which of the
	two are serving the Lord, and which will he not recognize even though
	they may cry many times "Lord, Lord."

	My opinion only.

�   I know the answers have been given:  "The Lord was testing his servant
�   and/or his handmaiden."  To be very frank, it does not wash with
�   me.  God don't work that way, only man does.  Look at history.
    
>    Actually, God has already established a precedence of testing
>    the faith of His followers via commandment (Genesis 22:1-19) and 
>    allowing personal trial (Job).  

Steve,
    
I have to agree with Hal. Attempting to use these scriptures as a basis
for excusing Joseph Smith's asking for one of his follower's wives is, to
me, ludicrous. 

First of all, in the case of Abraham, God Himself came to him and asked
him to make the sacrifice. In Joseph Smith's case, it was Joseph Smith
asking for the wife, not the Lord. Secondly, he was asking this man not
only to make a "sacrifice" but also to be a party to adultery. Thirdly,
even if God "commands" polygamy in fits and starts throughout history, 
to "raise up a people", He would never include a form of wife-swapping
to accomplish this. It sounds more like raising up a harem for his
prophets instead of raising up a people. If a man has a wife, how does
giving his wife to someone else further the cause of polygamy? None of
this makes any sense at all. 

Furthermore, to say that God "changed his mind" during Christ's day by
making the Gospel available to the Gentiles as well as the Jews shows a
complete misunderstanding of not only the Gospel (good news of salvation
in Christ) but of the Old Testament prophecies that indicate that God's
plan was to do that very thing all along. The Gospel is the good news
that "whosoever will", of *all* men, can be reconciled to God through
Christ, nothing more, nothing less. God did not "change his mind" and
decide to include the Gentiles as some kind of divine afterthought. 

Ed

The only situation in which I have any detailed knowledge is Joseph's
asking Heber C. Kimball to give his wife to him.  This event is described
in detail in note 138.59.  Joseph asked Heber to give his wife Vilate to him,
but he (Joseph) did not take Vilate, nor did he ever intend to do so.  As far
as I can tell, there was no adultery intended nor involved, and I think that
charges of adultery in this case are unfounded.

According to Jedediah M. Grant (see note 138.58), Joseph asked for the wives
of other men, not with the intent of taking them, but to test the men.  I
think that if any of you are to charge Joseph with adultery, the burden is on
you to provide historical evidence that Joseph did take the wives and have
relations with them (please start a new new note if you do this).

Joseph did use extreme methods to prove the loyalty of his leaders, not only
asking for wives but publicly rebuking them when they were innocent; please
re-read note 138.58 for examples of this.  My opinion is that Joseph knew
through inspiration that the Church was heading for very difficult times, and
he apparently wanted to be sure that the leaders would be able to withstand
the persecution and remain true to the cause.

Allen

    Interesting title.
    
    I have become convinced that those that spend a lot of time trying
    to tear at others beliefs are most insecure in their own.  The only
    way to prop up theirs is to pull others down.  
    
    And I agree.  Most of the topics in this conference would never
    convince anyone that did not want to believe.  
    
    As for the weak foundation.  Many have looked for cracks from inside
    and out.  It still stands, while things of lesser importance have
    gone by the side.  Wonder why?

    
    RE: .7
    
    Hi Allen,
    
    Joseph's methods seem rather, ah.., as you said, extreme. Was his
    method truly to establish a firm following? It would seem to me
    that public accusation where no harm was done would do little to
    strengthen his followers but only serve to raise questions in their
    minds. I don't remember Jesus ever employing these tactics.
    
    Charlie

    I have heard that the Church usually does not respond to critics
    from either within or without the Church.  Does anyone know if this
    is a generally true policy and can tell why the General Authorities
    do not respond to criticism?
    
    Paul

Hi Charlie, nice to hear from you again.

Read 138.58 and 138.59 to get a feeling for this testing by Joseph.  I wish
that these conferences had DECtalk so I could post a portion of Truman
Madsen's talk.

Allen

Boy, Allen, I really like how you help clear up things!
    
I hope that I can help promote understanding by spelling out a few things
in more detail.  God has via commandment or other means allowed his
servants to experience trials of faith as documented in the scriptures I
listed.  Abraham was commanded of God to shed innocent blood, a violation
of other commandments of God.  Abraham understood that God alone can
command to violate previous commandments.  Another of God's commandments is 
that a man shall have no more than one wife.  I believe that Abraham also knew 
of this commandment.  But, I believe God also commanded Abraham to have more 
than one wife.  Abraham was obedient to God's commands.

Joseph Smith, if he was a prophet like Abraham, could have received commands
like Abraham's.  Among these could have been commands that were a test of
faith as were some of Abraham's.  One of these could have involved poligamy,
as did Abraham's.  If a prophet of God, Joseph Smith could have given commands
from God to others.  Why could this not have also been a vehicle for tests of 
faith?  Such a test of faith via commandment from a prophet, as an example,
was given to Naaman and he was blessed for his obedience (2 Kings: 1-14).

The key is whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

>Furthermore, to say that God "changed his mind" during Christ's day by

Careful reading of my note clearly implies my understanding that the
change was part of a plan.  


Steve

    re: .10
    
    Yeah.  I've heard the same thing.  I don't have any sources to back
    it up.  My father thought it was because the Church prefers to avoid
    doing anything 'in bad taste'.  I kind of think it has something
    to do with the missions of the Church, which include proclaiming
    the Gospel.  I think the Church has found it more efficient to expend
    resources on that rather than on defending against critics.  I've 
    personally not met any critic of the Church that was convinced of the 
    truthfulness of the Church just by being proven wrong.  Belief has
    always come as a result of prayer, study and practicing Gospel
    principles.
    
    Steve

re: concerning church and leader's not responding to criticism

It has been my observation that this is true, that the church and the
GAs do not repond to critisism officially, though some GAs have been known
to privately repond to critisism, such as in a letter about the Jehovah
Witnesses (purportadely) from a GA to a JW leader aquaintance of his.


Chad

I recall hearing President Hinkley comment that the GA didn't respond to
critics because their callings and use of time were to further the work of
the Lord, not to contend.  They feel that the critics will come and go, but
the work must go forward.  I expect that they also realize that there are 
plenty of BYU professors and others who will be glad to answer the critics.

Allen

  Hi Allen,

  In your response in the other topic you stated,

"It may be useful for us to reflect on the words of the Lord to his disciples
 in the Bible where he told them that they must be willing to forsake even
 their families for Him. (Matthew 10:37)"

  Then you go on to hinge the remainder of your response on Joseph's
  demanding of the Apostles wives based on the above. Let's look at
  the scripture,

    "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me;
     and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of
     Me."

  To me, this reasoning fails on two accounts. First, what is being said
  here has nothing to do with forsaking anyone to my understanding only
  that Jesus should be supreme over all. The wording is that we should not
  love our father or mother _more_ than Jesus. This doesn't mean that we
  shouldn't love and care for them as well, in fact, it is written that he
  doesn't care for his family is worse than an infidel.

  Secondly, what has really struck me throughout these other responses is
  that Joseph seems to place himself on the level of 'testor' as opposed
  to 'testee'. Let me explain. The references to God testing Abram was
  just that, a testing of Abram not Isaac. All 'testing' that I can remember
  was initiated and carried out directly by God. Why does God now need a
  middle man? If the desired intent was to test the Apostles steadfastness,
  why didn't God directly test the Apostles instead of through Joseph?
 
  I had trouble with the following as well,  

"We might ask ourselves, "Why would Joseph test the brethren in those ways?"
"What right did he have to do those things?"  First, as a prophet, Joseph
 had the right to do what-so-ever the Lord inspired him to do."

  Don't you sense a slight danger in this attitude? the ability to justify
  anything 'in the name of the LORD'?

 Charlie

    To Steve Sherman:
    
    You bring up a good point when you say that  simply proving a
    critic wrong does not help the critic to gain a testimony of the
    truthfulness of the Church.  Rather, it is through prayer and study
    and sincere desire, shedding biases and blinders, that one can discern
    the truth.  I know for me that was the evolution I had to go through
    before discovering the Gospel.  I studied, read and investigated
    many other religions.  Only when I had exhausted that search and
    all of my biases was I able to go to the Lord in humility and sincerity
    and ask for him to guide me towards his Church.
    
    In participating in these Notes I am amazed that there is still
    criticism about points, either historical, scriptural, doctrinal
    or intrepretational, which, I believe, have been clarified, sometimes
    in great detail, by our more scholarly brethren.  
    
    This last year I taught Book of Mormon in Sunday School and used
    much of Hugh Nibley's research on it.  I am amazed at what he and
    other non-LDS scholars are reporting on the Book of Mormon's
    intricacies and consistencies to Hebrew cultural, historical,
    linguistic, religious, and political traditions.  I cannot understand
    how anyone could read and study it and continue to say it was an
    invention of Joseph Smith.  If so, then all the more should we revere
    Joseph Smith for his literary genius.
    
    When there is so much evidence, how can one see it and not understand
    or believe?
    
    Any thoughts, anyone?
    

    
RE .12
    
>Abraham was commanded of God to shed innocent blood, a violation
>of other commandments of God.  
	Sorry! but I am not aware that God asked Abraham to do anything
    that was against a COMMANDMENT.   But Joseph Smith did ask others
    to break the commandment 'Thou shall not commit adultery'

    If I was asked to do something that was contrary to my beliefs,I
    would say "NO".If God himself asked me to do something that was
    wrong,I would refuse,and I believe he would say"You are a worthy
    son,I compliment you for making the right choice,and,refusing to
    do wrong,bless you,my son".
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    re .19
    
    Michael,
    
    It seems, then that if Joseph Smith asked you to give him your wife,
    then you would have said "No!" and found yourself in the position
    of disobeying your Prophet.
    
    Ed

>  Secondly, what has really struck me throughout these other responses is
>  that Joseph seems to place himself on the level of 'testor' as opposed
>  to 'testee'. Let me explain. The references to God testing Abram was

If you'll carefully read note 199.12 you'll find a reference to an example of 
a prophet putting an individual to the test in the story about Naaman.  There 
are other examples of tests of faith through obedience to commandment (perhaps 
such as in Matthew 19: 16-22 - compare with Matthew 5:48).  Also, a careful 
reading of the Doctrine and Covenants (such as D&C 121) as well as many 
historical accounts (detailing tarring and feathering, jailing, and martydom 
among other trials) indicate that Joseph Smith was severely tested.  By the 
way, my own feeling is that Isaac was also being tested and that he was 
rewarded as a result of his obedience to his father.  Accounts I have read
so far have indicated that plural marriage for early Mormons was an extreme 
test of faith.

>  Don't you sense a slight danger in this attitude? the ability to justify
>  anything 'in the name of the LORD'?

Yes.  There is danger in that one might not hearken to the voice of the LORD,
thinking that one is wiser.  Or, one might hearken to one that claims to speak
as a voice of the LORD, perhaps with little thought at all.  All things that a 
prophet of God will speak can be personally verified through a witness of the 
Spirit after prayer, study, obedience and so forth.  We are encouraged to seek 
such spiritual promptings about all things that we learn that claim to be 
spiritual in nature.  This has been heavily discussed in other notes.  I have
put and continue to put many of the writings of Joseph Smith and others to this 
test (such as the Book of Mormon) and found spiritual confirmation in addition
to better understanding.
    
>>Abraham was commanded of God to shed innocent blood, a violation
>>of other commandments of God.  
>	Sorry! but I am not aware that God asked Abraham to do anything
>    that was against a COMMANDMENT.   But Joseph Smith did ask others
>    to break the commandment 'Thou shall not commit adultery'

God asked Abraham to shed the blood of Isaac in Genesis 22:2.  This was 
contrary to God's commandment to men not to kill each other in Genesis 9:5-6.
I think God knew that He would not require Abraham to actually carry this out.
Other Scriptures, such as the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price,
further indicate Abraham's understanding of the importance of not shedding
innocent blood.  As Allen pointed out in a previous note, no one committed 
adultery as a result of commandment of God via Joseph Smith.  But, many were 
tested.

There has been some question as to why the Lord would want to test someone.
As indicated previously, the story of Job can probably shed light on this.
The result was that Job was strengthened in faith and enjoyed a close 
relationship with the Lord.  And, the Lord blessed him 'more than his 
beginning'.

Personally, I don't know how I would respond to a commandment to give
up my wife.  But, I know that whatever the response, it would only be
after I had gone to the Lord on my knees about it and gotten some kind
of answer from Him.  I would know that it would be a test of obedience and I
would not want to fail that test.  I personally hope that I am never
asked to give up my wife or to take on another wife.  But, my desire
to be obedient to the Lord and my love for the Lord are greater than these 
hopes.

Steve

Re .20

Ed,

Here's a question for you.

Suppose you lived in the New Testament times and Paul came into your city
and told you to do something which was against your beliefs as a Christian.
What would you do?

Allen

re .16 

Charlie,


>"It may be useful for us to reflect on the words of the Lord to his disciples
> in the Bible where he told them that they must be willing to forsake even
> their families for Him. (Matthew 10:37)"
>
>  Then you go on to hinge the remainder of your response on Joseph's
>  demanding of the Apostles wives based on the above. Let's look at
>  the scripture,
>
>    "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me;
>     and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of
>     Me."
>
>  To me, this reasoning fails on two accounts. First, what is being said
>  here has nothing to do with forsaking anyone to my understanding only
>  that Jesus should be supreme over all. The wording is that we should not
>  love our father or mother _more_ than Jesus. This doesn't mean that we
>  shouldn't love and care for them as well, in fact, it is written that he
>  doesn't care for his family is worse than an infidel.

My understanding of Matthew 10:37 is that we should put Jesus first in our
lives, and that all other things are secondary.  Let's step back a moment,
Charlie, and try to put ourselves in the position of Heber C. Kimball.
Heber believed that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.  This meant to
Heber, that Joseph spoke for God, and that Joseph's request for Heber to give
his wife to him was God's request.  I gave the reference to Matthew, because
if God did request Heber to give his wife to Joseph, then Heber should be
willing to do that in order to follow Christ.  As explained in 138.59, this
decision was very hard for Heber and his wife to make, but they finally chose
to follow Christ (through his prophet).

Allen

    I couldn't help but notice that I opened a can of worms and yet
    I have gotten a bit of a chuckle from the can.  I find all the comments
    interesting and have been amazed as to where this little section
    has gone.  I would hope that those who feel true to the faith have
    not felt that it was at their expense that was not the intent. 
    The intent was more satisfy my curiousity not to make fun of or
    ridicule.
    
    I noted that there were many mentions of the Abraham and Isaac
    incident.  I'd like you all to know that since I became a father
    I had lots of trouble swallowing that story as well other stories
    in that vain, including JS plural marriage policy.  I suppose I could be labelled a "heathen" because
    I guess I don't believe many of the Biblical stories.  There are
    many good things written in the Bible and for that matter the Book
    of Mormon but good things do not make the word of God.
    
    Then what does make the word of God?  I don't know.  I do know that
    if God did want to talk to us, man would not be in the loop ie. Jimmy and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Mohammad, Joseph
    Smith etc.  I guess I would ask God for ID, I am that confident
    in myself, and not that confident in man.
    
    Now don't get upset about me and my relation with eternity.  I am
    comfortable with not knowing whether is life after death, because
    if there is a God as is described in most christian groups, then
    He will know I made the best choices with the information I had.
    (From my last sentance you should be able to tell I do not believe
    in being damned if I don't believe in Christ.  I think that is just
    one of the many myths to get everyone on the wagon.)  If there is no
    life after death and no God then ... so what?
    
    I'll keep crusing this conference, who knows maybe the Seventies
    will make a come back...or not.
    
    hal 

    I believe that God has given to each of us the ability and freedom
    to choose our own path.I have my own beliefs as to what is right
    and wrong,this,is what our father wants us to develop.He has given
    us guidlines to live by,we are free to choose to follow or not.To
    give up yourself to anyone is very dangerous.Man is imperfect,and,
    will make mistakes.If the Lord or a spokesman for the Lord asked
    you to kill your children,would you do it?What kind of a being would
    purposely put you through that?This is not a test,it is cruelty.Our
    Father is loving and kind,as is his son.I get really tired of people
    using God as a scapegoat to justify their actions.Satan also is
    used as well "the devil made me do it".I believe Satan is real,and,that
    he wants followers,but,we make the choices and therefor we are going
    to be held accountable.I believe that I would fare better refusing
    to do something I believe to be wrong.I would respect my children
    more to see them do the same,than to do whatever I asked them to
    do.I dont want my children to be mindless robots,not able to decide
    for themself.
    
    If the prophet had asked me to give up my wife,I would say no,it
    is wrong.Perhaps he would have greater respect for me,perhaps that
    was the answer he was really looking for?
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

Re .16

>  Don't you sense a slight danger in this attitude? the ability to justify
>  anything 'in the name of the LORD'?

I agree, Charlie.  There is a very great danger in this attitude; Jonestown is
a good example.

I don't have my Journal of Discourses here at work, but Brigham Young expressed
great concern that the members of the Church would blindly follow their
prophets. He said something to the effect that the Saints should only follow the
prophets after receiving confirmation through the Spirit that the prophets
are correct.  We LDS believe that prophets of God are human and can make
mistakes.  They are prophets because of their priesthood and the inspiration
they receive and by being called by God as such, but they still make mistakes
and still speak their own opinions as well as speaking the word of the Lord.
We have to pray for guidance to discern when a prophet is speaking for the Lord
and when he is speaking his own wisdom.  I realize that most non-LDS Christians
have the attitude that everything said by a prophet is the word of God (in
effect they are perfect in what they say), and this is one of the differences
in perspective between us and them.

If President Benson asked us to do something that I thought was against Gospel
principles, I would do some serious fasting and praying to find out what the
Lord wanted.  I would have to find out if Benson was speaking with his own
wisdom or if my concept of the Gospel was wrong.  If fact, we are counseled to
do this even if we agree with what the General Authorities say.  If I'm called
to a Church position by my Bishop, I shouldn't blindly or automatically accept
the call.  If I have reservations about the call, I should discuss them with
the Bishop.  I should pray & fast about it, so if I accept the call it will
be because the Lord has given me a witness that the call is from him.  Blind
faith in our leaders has no place in Mormonism!

Allen

Steve,

� God has via commandment or other means allowed his servants to
� experience trials of faith as documented in the scriptures I
� listed.  Abraham was commanded of God to shed innocent blood, a
� violation of other commandments of God. Abraham understood that
� God alone can command to violate previous commandments.  

You have overlooked something very basic here. Abraham could not 
possibly have violated any of God's commandments, since God had not 
yet given the Law to his people. Abraham knew of no such "commandment" 
to conflict with God's asking him to sacrifice Isaac. You point to Gen 
9:5-6 as God's command against killing, yet, if you read it, it is a 
warning rather than a commandment. Also, if you go back and carefully
read the account of Abraham and Isaac, you will see that Abraham had
believed that God would provide the sacrifice, and that he and Isaac
would return together. A remarkable display of faith!

� Another of God's commandments is that a man shall have no more 
� than one wife.  I believe that Abraham also knew of this commandment. 
� But, I believe God also commanded Abraham to have more than one wife.  

Again, Steve, Abraham knew of no such commandment. Your speculation
sounds good but it is completely unsupported by the scripture. 

Charlie Johnson makes an excellent point in that in the Bible it is 
always God himself initiating any "tests". No one else. My personal 
opinion is that "a test of faith via commandment from a prophet" is 
completely un-Biblical and nothing more than a technique of intimidation 
to develop absolute and unquestioning obedience to a human leader
or organization. The same thing has been done time and again by
dictators, cult leaders, and secret societies throughout history.
God, on the other hand, free and willing followers, and needs administer 
no such "tests" to develop blind obedience. 

You also mention the story of Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings:5) as a "test 
of faith". Again, I have to disagree. First of all, Naaman came to 
Elisha, not the other way around, and was told plainly "do this simple 
thing and you will be restored." He wasn't asked to make some great,
heart wrenching sacrifice to get what he sought from God, just a simple, 
humble act of faith. Not only was Naaman delivered of leprosy, but came 
away with a deep, abiding and worshipful change in attitude as well.
When he tried to reward Elisha, Elisha refused to take any of the gifts
he offered, further underscoring that the healing was from God, not
Elisha, and that God was not interested in payment for services rendered,
unlike the pagan deities of the time. Neither God nor Elisha ever asked
Naaman to "sacrifice" to "prove" anything. 

I also think that your lumping of all manner of trials and hardships
under the heading of "test of faith" is an attempt to obscure the
completely different issue of "test of faith via commandment from a
prophet". By mixing it in with other, more mundane occurences, you give
it a sort of credibility by association. This I completely reject. You
cannot compare opposition and hardship with shocking orders to violate
God's written commandments. 

from 138.58, Allen Leigh
� We have to keep in mind that polygamy had been introduced to the
� Apostles (but not the Church as a whole), and when Joseph said he wanted
� their wives, they understood he was referring to their obtaining divorces
� and Joseph taking the wives in polygamy. 

Allen says that the Apostles undertood Joseph Smith to mean that he
wanted them to divorce their wives and give them to him. The scripture
plainly states that the only grounds for divorce is adultery, and that if
any man divorces his wife for any cause other than adultery, he causes
her to commit adultery if she marries another man. So also does the man
who marries her commit adultery. 

We have an interesting situation here. Joseph Smith asks each of his
Apostles to divorce his wife and give her to him - a sin, plainly in 
violation of the scripture. If the wife marries Joseph Smith, she commits
adultery, Joseph Smith commits adultery, and the Apostle who gave her up
is a party to their adultery. The fact that the Apostles each agreed to
do this thing, to me, says an awful lot about Joseph Smith and the power
he had over others. 

I don't care where you look in the Bible, you'll never find a precedent
for this kind of "testing". 

Ed 

    It has been suggested that Joseph Smith's actions in asking for another
    man's wife were tantamount to adultery. I would like to respond to this
    notion. 
    
    First, adultery and fornication have never been sanctioned in any form
    by Mormon teaching. Sexual relations outside the holy bonds of marriage
    is sin, and is, and always has been, grounds for excommunication from
    the church. Joseph Smith and all other church leaders are no exception
    to this principle. 
    
    Second, Joseph did not propose to engage in adultery or, as someone
    suggested "wife swapping", when he asked for other men's wives. He was
    proposing that their wives become legally married to him. This is not
    adultery and it is not wife swapping. 
    
    Third, though non-Mormons may question Joseph's motives, the fact is
    that, although some agreed to Joseph's requests that Joseph take their
    wives to be his, Joseph never actually married any of these women, nor
    did he have any kind of sexual relationship with any of them. It has
    been asserted that this was a method of testing these brethren and
    their wives, to see if they would sacrifice things that were most dear
    to them, if the Lord required it. Since every instance proves out that
    Joseph never actually followed through with these requests, the
    assertion cannot be refuted that it was done for testing purposes. In
    fact, the record shows that afterwards, Joseph showed forth great
    compassion and shared tears with those so tested, for he know what they
    had been called upon to suffer to even consider such a request. 
    
    Forth, as has been pointed out previously, Joseph did not expect blind
    obedience to these requests. The saints involved were called upon to
    fast and pray regarding these requests, and they struggled mightily to
    know the Lord's will. The will of the Lord for them was to be *willing*
    to sacrifice all that the Lord asked of them. It was also their
    privilege and responsibility to ascertain that it really *was* the Lord
    who required it of them. 
    
    I believe this is an eternal principle: We must be willing to sacrifice
    all that we have, should the Lord require it of us. If we are, then He
    will pour out great blessings upon us. If, instead, we will value that
    which the Lord has given us higher than He that has given it, then we
    cannot hope to receive the same blessings. It was just after such a
    test given to Abraham, when called upon to sacrifice his son, Isaac,
    that he received an everlasting covenant and promise from God. 
    
    Fifth, some critics of the church choose to refer to the practice of
    polygamy in the early Mormon church as though it is a form of adultery.
    It was not adultery. Polygamy called for a man to be legally married to
    each of his wives. Polygamy was not illegal in those days. Later, laws
    were passed which made polygamy illegal. The government seized the
    property of the church and imprisoned its leaders as a result. The
    church appealed to the Supreme Court that such laws were a violation of
    free exercise of religion. After the Supreme Court ruled that these
    laws were constitutional, the prophet of the church appealed to the
    Lord to know what action to take. It was revealed to him that the
    practice was to end, and that the church members were to uphold the law
    of the land. 
    
    An interesting side note: Mormon's believe that polygamy *is* sin,
    *UNLESS* it is specifically commanded by the Lord. In other words, it
    is not enough for it to be legal according to the laws of the land, but
    it must also have been specifically authorized by God in each
    particular instance. Thus we believe that Abraham's practice of
    polygamy and the New Testament injunction that a man must be a husband
    to only one wive can both be examples of God's instructions on this
    subject at differing times. In the Book of Mormon, for example, those
    who practiced polygamy in ancient America were rebuked by their
    prophets for so doing, for the Lord had commanded them that they were
    not to practice polygamy amongst themselves, just as is the case today. 

    Those who accuse Joseph Smith of adultery do so unjustly, for they
    slander the name of a righteous man, and a prophet of God! 
    
    Rich

    Hi!
    
    Have been in this conference since last spring and even though I
    have not shared my views with the folks here I have been researching
    many of the various subjects that come up. In reference to what
    Allen said earlier about following the counsel of Prophets,
    I just come up with a statement of the prophet Joseph Smith
    from "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg.258"...
    "Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with
    doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature,
    like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even
    Jesus, if He were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His
    enemies said all manner of iniquity was in Him. How easy it was
    for Jesus to call out all the iniquity of the hearts of those He
    was among"  
    
    If we want to, we can find fault in anyone and anything- the seeds
    of contention, the adversary's best friend.  I have faith in my
    Lord and Savior and in his appointed servants.  By the Holy Spirit,
    Prayer, Fasting, and searching the scriptures I am able to look
    beyond human frailties, my own for starters, and look toward that
    great hope, In Salvation and exaltation promised only if we follow
    the Lord's teaching.  I see that I requires faith, faith that can
    be tested, sacrifice, which can be temporally painful, yet result
    in untold of blessings.  We just need to focus upon why we are here
    and keep that in mind; read Abraham 3:25.  Blind faith, no. Love
    of Christ and what He has promised? Yes!
    
    Kevin
    

> Suppose you lived in the New Testament times and Paul came into your city
> and told you to do something which was against your beliefs as a Christian.
> What would you do?
    

    If he told me to divorce my wife and give her to him, I'd refuse!

    Ed

    Re: Note 199.27 by CASV02::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
>Abraham could not 
>possibly have violated any of God's commandments, since God had not 
>yet given the Law to his people. 
    
    According to Mormon belief, the commandments were taught to the
    children of men from the days of Adam on. 
    
         And God cursed the earth with a sore curse, and was angry with the
         wicked, with all the sons of man whom he had made; 
         
         For they would not hearken unto his voice, nor believe on his Only
         Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the
         meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of
         the world. 
         
         And thus the Gospel began to be preached from the beginning, being
         declared by holy angels sent froth from the presnece of God, and
         by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
         
         And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy
         ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that
         it should be in the world, unto the end therof; and thus it was.
         Amen. (Moses 5:56-59) 

    Were such commandments not known, sin would not have been possible, for
    a man does not sin against a commandment he has not received. But they
    did know the commandments, and so it was a sin for Cain to slay Abel,
    and the people in the days of Noah were able to sin, for they also knew
    the commandments. We do not believe that God waited thousands of years
    before he revealed the commandments for the *first time* to Moses. No,
    the commandments that Moses received were a reiteration of that which
    had already been taught for centuries and understood by all the
    prophets, including Abraham. 
    
>Charlie Johnson makes an excellent point in that in the Bible it is 
>always God himself initiating any "tests". No one else. My personal 
>opinion is that "a test of faith via commandment from a prophet" is 
>completely un-Biblical and nothing more than a technique of intimidation 
>to develop absolute and unquestioning obedience to a human leader
>or organization. 
                                                       
    The Bible is full of tests imposed by God through is prophets upon the
    people. There were many tests of faith imposed upon the children of
    Isreal. Were they imposed by the Lord through Moses or by the Lord
    directly? They came through a living prophet. 
    
    For example: The people were asked to leave their homes and go into the
    forbidding desert; to collect manna six days a week, and any extra
    would spoil, but not to gather on the seventh, yet that preserved from
    the sixth day would not spoil on the seventh; to look upon the serpent
    Moses raised to be spared death; to cross the Red Sea on dry ground,
    trusting that the waters would not come in upon them, and while being
    pursued by the soldiers; to believe that water would come forth from a
    rock; that their clothing would not deteriorate for 40 years; to paint
    blood on their doorways and to observe the other "strange" instructions
    of the passover; to go into the promised land and to mercilessly kill
    the residents of that land. 
    
    I submit that all of these are examples of tests of faith imposed by
    God upon his people through living prophets. And what's more, what
    about Noah, whose family's faith was tried, when he told them to get
    into the Ark, for the world would be destroyed by a flood? 
    
    What about Elijah, who tried the faith of the widow, when he asked her
    to feed him, when she had none to spare? 
    
    And what about Joshua, who tried the faith of the people, as they
    obeyed his instructions and crossed the Jordan on dry ground, and
    when they marched around Jericho, and when they slew the people
    of the land?
    
    True, God has often *directly* tried his prophets, but His people he
    has also often tried *through* his prophets. We believe it is no
    different in our day. 
    
>Allen says that the Apostles undertood Joseph Smith to mean that he
>wanted them to divorce their wives and give them to him. The scripture
>plainly states that the only grounds for divorce is adultery, and that if
>any man divorces his wife for any cause other than adultery, he causes
>her to commit adultery if she marries another man. So also does the man
>who marries her commit adultery. 
                                                                   
    You say that divorce for any cause, other than that of adultery, is
    itself adultery. I have heard it explained (can't remember where) that
    Christ, in speaking of "divorce" in this context, was speaking about
    the practice of the day of "putting away" one's wife without a *formal*
    divorce. These passages are much debated amongst Christians, but
    Mormon's to not believe that a person that is legally divorced for
    causes other than adultery commits adultery when he or she legally
    remarries, and neither do many Christians, with the notable exception
    of the Catholic church. Even so, the LDS church does discourage
    divorce. 
     
    Regards,
    Rich
             

    To aid in understanding the discussion, it is well to notice that
    the believing Mormon places religion in a different place than most
    non-Mormons. Rather than seeing religion as something provided to
    help make this life better, the Believing Mormon sees this life
    as a phase in an eternal plan. A phase that is to provide growth
    and development for the soul and to help make one ready for
    responsibility that is beyond the human power to concieve.
    
    Understanding this then, the judgement of the value of an experience
    is not whether is "seems the right thing to do" but rather it's
    value in an eternal context. Since a mere mortal can not easily
    make that evaluation, it is necessary to have some help determining
    what the best action would be. As was suggested the real answers
    for an individual must come from God, and believing in prayer that
    produces answers that come from diety, one then seeks an answer
    from diety that provides the most appropriate behavior. This only
    leaves the need for faith to actually do what one "knows is right".
    
    In this context it actually makes sense that a sacrifice that is
    very painful in this earthly context might in fact be valuable in
    preparing one for the immense responsibility to come in a future
    sphere of existence. It also makes perfectly good sense for someone
    to be asked to willingly allow ones' beloved wife to leave home
    and family and become wife to someone else INSTEAD. The mere acceptance
    of such a request is itself a VERY GREAT sacrifice, both for the
    man and the wife.
    
    What good could possibly come from such a request? A strengthening
    of one's own comittment to follow what one knows is right. Once
    you make a greater sacrifice, a lot of things that bothered before
    suddenly become non-issues. A greatly improved self-confidence,
    knowing that you were tested and passed. A stronger feeling of
    closeness to God, knowing that he really knows about you and cares
    enough about you to help train you. And a peaceful sense of wholeness
    that comes from knowing you have your priorities in order.
    
    Did Abraham really give a sacrifice? ABSOLUTELY!! As he went through
    a rather lengthly time of getting himself to the place for the
    sacrifice I am sure that he often thought that somehow there would
    be a way that he would not have to actually kill his son. I too
    have felt those same feelings, and sometimes God does "provide a
    ram" but sometimes he does not. Having been unable to have children
    for MANY years, Abraham's feelings for Isaac were very deep, But
    also in a society where posterity was of paramount importance this
    love was even greater. I am sure that the Lord waited untill there
    was no doubt left in Abraham's mind, that his hands were raised,
    and his muscles tensed and he in fact knew in his own heart that
    he would comply with the commandment that he was given. Yes indeed
    it was a sacrifice that is difficult for us to imagine.
    
    Did Isaach make a sacrifice? ABSOLUTELY! Imagine lying on the altar
    watching your Father raise his hand to slay you. A tremendous sacrifice
    indeed.
    
    I forget who said it but someone I respected said:
    
    "Why was Abraham asked to make that sacrifice? Abraham needed to
    learn something about Abraham."
    
    Why was the sacrifice of Abraham recorded for us to read? To help
    us under stand the need of sacrifice in our lives. But even more,
    to help us understand the sacrifice given by God the Father and
    Jesus Christ but in this case there was no "Ram in the thicket".
    
    In addition I leave you my wittness from personal experience that
    God does make tests like this of us, and they are indeed good for
    us. Furthermore sometimes we don't have to go through with it and
    sometimes we do, but the real sacrifice is the willingness to go
    through with it and I mean a real sincere willingness.  I have knelt
    by my bed, and crying like a baby with my whole body and soul, gave
    thanks for his answer, even though it would mean I actually had
    to sacrifice something that I treasured more than I could express,
    perhaps even more than my own life. I recall that experience from
    time to time, and it almost always (like now) brings tears to my
    eyes, but it also leaves me feeling better about myself and feeling
    a stronger love and bond to my God.
    
    I hope that this helps some of you understand that through our eyes
    and in our value structure, the sacrifice makes sense. It hurts
    but it makes sense.
    
    Your brother,
    
    Len
    
    
    

re: .32

Hear Hear!!

Chad

  
      Hey how about my two cents worth,
    
    About this insecurity I agree with the fellow who wrote the base
    note. As I said in an earlier note about the Hoffman Murders we
    have a horriable problem with this. And I think the reason is
    fairly simple because we believe and tragically don't know what
    is true. Its based on individual testamony. This problem I believe
    is exagerated by the ham fisted reaction to attacks. Just say any
    thing unkind (weather its true or not) and watch the borderline
    goofy reaction. 
    
    I have a testamony of the Gospel and I can't understand why it is
    that Joseph Smith can't have any faults. Or anyone else for that
    matter. When I was reading the Hoffman Murder book I really came
    away with a good idea of what what the leaders of the Church are
    like and its not much different than us��. Their reaction to 
    problems aren't much different than ours. 
    
    
    So base noter I agree with you when you think Mormons are insecure.
    We don't know everything and can't explain everything because God
    wanted us to live by faith. I feel fairly comfortable that Joseph
    Smith was a normal guy but I believe that he had a calling from
    God. So as a Prophet I'd believe in him. As a Bank president I'd
    go to someone else. Same with todays Prophet or the 12 or even our
    Bishop. I've had local leaders that I followed, no problem, but in
    their personel lives, what a mess! and I think thats okay its their
    calling that I follow.
    
    For what its worth there's my 2 cents worth,
    
    FRED MUDGETT
     

I don't get upset when someone points out the mistakes that some
Church members might make.  The reason is that I have learned that
when people talk about the Church, they may be talking about one of
three things:

	the society

	the structure

	the Gospel

The Church society is the collection of folks who tend to be called 
Mormons.  They value their families highly, do geneaology and missionary
work, and generally extend Christian fellowship and support to themselves 
and to others.  Because they are human, they make mistakes.  The society
is always changing as people change.

The Church structure is the religious organization established per instructions
in the Doctrine and Covenants and directed by a Prophet of God.  Not all 
details were given and it was intended that adjustments be made on occasion as 
necessary by its leaders through revelation and industry to address the needs 
of the Saints.  It was started in 1830 and will end when Christ returns.

The Gospel is what is found in the Scriptures and revelation.  It is truth
and will last forever.  The Gospel is unchanging.

I think that sometimes when people see a change made in the Church structure, 
they confuse this with a change in the Gospel.  Or, when they hear somebody
comment about the Church society, they think it has soemthing to do with
the Church structure.  You get the idea.  By realizing that these are different
things, I avoid obvious confusion and unnecessary 'tests of faith'.  :-)


Steve

    re: .27
    
    Ed, we are in and will probably continue to be in disagreement.  
    Guess, that's how it goes ... :-)

    Steve

    r.35 
    
    Hey That was what I was trying to say!
    
    Fred Mudgett

    "Abraham had to learn something about Abraham".
    
    What was it that Abraham learned?He learned that he could kill his
    own son,because he believed God asked him to do it?If this is God,
    then he is not MY God.My God is kind and understanding,loving his
    children,when we fail he is sad,but,hopeful.When we succeed he is
    pleased and supportive.He allows nature and man to take its course.
    We are in charge of our own destiny.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    Just this morning, our family came across this passage in the Book
    of Mormon regarding Abraham:
         
         For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may
         know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many
         hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a
         hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were
         before us. 
                                                                    
         Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his
         name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this
         intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and
         for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as
         it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient
         unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a
         similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.  (Jacob 4:4-5) 
    
    From this, we learn that Abraham knew of Christ, and worshiped the
    Father in His name. He was counted as righteous for being obedient in
    his willingness to offer up his son, Isaac, just as the Father would
    offer up his Son, Jesus Christ. This incident was in similitude of God
    and his Only Begotten Son. 

    Witnessing of Christ,    
    Rich
                               

    re: -.1 
    
    Nice, Rich.  I like that ...
    
    Steve

 Re .31   
    
 >    According to Mormon belief, the commandments were taught to the
 >    children of men from the days of Adam on. 

 Rich, I'm glad you qualified this by saying "according to Mormon belief". 
 That changes things considerably. Now we realize that we are not dealing 
 with the Bible alone for support of your claims about Abraham, and that
 needed to be made clear.

 I hope that everyone realizes that when I say there is no scriptural 
 basis for your claims about Abraham, that I refer solely to the Bible. 
 For non-Mormons, the credibility of the Mormon scriptures has yet to be 
 established, which is another topic.

 I seem to recall that you - or some other frequent participant in this 
 conference - told me that Mormon beliefs are not in conflict with the 
 Bible. I tried to find that statement recently, but could not. Did some- 
 one make that statement, or am I mistaken?

 Ed

    Here, Ed, you can use this:
    
    	Mormon beliefs are not in conflict with the Bible.
    
    Steve :-)

    Why, thank you, Steve. That was most accommodating of you!

    Ed    

    I probably did make the statement Ed refers to. To elaborate on what
    Steve has said, we do believe that LDS church doctrines are in harmony
    with the Bible. To the extent that what the apostles and prophets who
    wrote the books of the Bible has been correctly preserved (translated
    correctly and transcribed accurately), we believe the Bible to be the
    word of God. We believe that some plain and precious things are missing
    from the Bible that were originally there. It was revealed to the Book
    of Mormon prophets that this would be the case. 
    
    Does this mean that we do not accept what is in the Bible of today, or
    that we use this as a justification to not accept certain doctrines in
    the Bible? No, but it does mean that the Bible is not as easy to
    understand as it was originally and that knowledge of some things may
    have been lost. However, when the overall context of the Bible is
    considered, the doctrines and teachings themselves have been remarkably
    preserved, and we claim that LDS doctrine is in harmony with these
    teachings. 
    
    We do not believe that the Bible contains all there is to know about
    Abraham, or even about Jesus. John wrote: 
    
         And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which,
         if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
         itself could not contain the books that should be written. (John
         21:25)
    
    From the Mormon point of view, we rejoice when God chooses to reveal
    more to mankind, through his prophets. We assert that any such
    revelation will be in harmony with that which God has revealed before,
    for God is not changing, as shown by the following passage from the
    Book of Mormon: 

         Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we
         need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the
         Jews? 
         
         Know ye not that there are more nations that one? Know ye not that
         I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember
         those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the
         heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word
         unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the
         earth? 
                       
         Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my
         word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness
         unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto
         another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like
         unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the
         testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 
         
         And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same
         yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words
         according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one
         word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work
         is not yet finished; neither shall it be unto the end of man,
         neither from that time henceforth and forever. 
         
         Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that
         it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not
         caused more to be written. 
         
         For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in
         the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that
         they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the
         books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man
         according to their works, according to that which is written. 
         
         For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it;
         and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it;
         and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of
         Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I
         shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall
         write it. 
         
         And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of
         the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews;
         and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost
         tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the
         words of the Nephites and the Jews. 
         
         And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house
         of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their
         possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will
         show unto them that fight against my word and against my people,
         who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I
         covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever. (2
         Nephi 29:6-14) 
             
    Rich       

Re .32, Len Winmill

>    In this context it actually makes sense that a sacrifice that is
>    very painful in this earthly context might in fact be valuable in
>    preparing one for the immense responsibility to come in a future
>    sphere of existence. It also makes perfectly good sense for someone
>    to be asked to willingly allow ones' beloved wife to leave home
>    and family and become wife to someone else INSTEAD. The mere acceptance
>    of such a request is itself a VERY GREAT sacrifice, both for the
>    man and the wife.
>    
>    What good could possibly come from such a request? A strengthening
>    of one's own comittment to follow what one knows is right. Once
>    you make a greater sacrifice, a lot of things that bothered before
>    suddenly become non-issues. A greatly improved self-confidence,
>    knowing that you were tested and passed. A stronger feeling of
>    closeness to God, knowing that he really knows about you and cares
>    enough about you to help train you. And a peaceful sense of wholeness
>    that comes from knowing you have your priorities in order.

Len, again I have a great deal of trouble with this. No, I don't have 
trouble with the idea of sacrifice, obedience and submission to God as 
important. What I have trouble with is this whole muddled idea of
taking a thing that God has plainly and unequivocably stated is WRONG,
and using it as a "test of faith by commandment". I think that the whole
concept is perverse and an insult to the God who gave us the rules by
which to guide our lives. Let me repeat what you said:

> It also makes perfectly good sense for someone to be asked to willingly
> allow ones' beloved wife to leave home and family and become wife to
> someone else INSTEAD. 

Sorry Len, this doesn't make "perfectly good sense", it makes no sense at
all! I'll say it as many times as I have to, that this would be divorce,
which God hates, and adultery, which needs no further comment. 

There are absolutely NO grounds for the upright wife of an upright man to
leave and become wife to someone else. Jesus plainly stated that such an
act would be adultery. He gave the grounds under which a divorce is
acceptable, and it did not include "if a prophet asks you" or any other
such foolishness. It is no "sacrifice" to willingly divorce your wife
that she may marry another man, it is a rejection of God's pattern for
marriage and a profaning of the marriage covenent. 

Jesus said "Whatever God hath joined together, let no man put asunder".
This includes any man asked to break his marriage covenant to give his
wife to Joseph Smith. This includes Joseph Smith. Who is greater, God or
Joseph Smith? 

You can try the loftiest speculation your mind can conceive, but you will 
never escape the fact that God has some "plain and precious" (to use your 
own words) commandments that we are meant to obey. He will not send 
anyone, prophet or otherwise, to tempt us to break them as some sort of 
bizarre "test" of faith. In fact, if you read your Bible, you will 
find that God values obedience over sacrifice. Obedience to what? His 
commandments, certainly. Your own sacred covenants? Of course. To those
in authority over you? Yes, and I would say, in that order, too. And the
sacrifice He most values is a humble and contrite heart. 

Are there "tests" of faith? Possibly so. Are any of them arranged in 
such a way as to cause you to choose between conforming to God's clear
commandments and your own sacred covenants versus obeying the capricious
propositions of a "prophet"? Impossible. 

>    What good could possibly come from such a request? A strengthening
>    of one's own comittment to follow what one knows is right... 

Really? How could you be strengthened in your commitment to follow what 
you know is right, if you just agreed to do something that you God says
is wrong?

Regards, 

Ed

    I have been doing some research into Fawn Brodie's book.  The jury
    is still out on some of her stuff and I still plan to post the results
    when I'm ready.  One of the issues being brought up here is that of 
    marriage between Joseph Smith and the wives of other men.  Contrary
    to what some who use her book as a reference may claim, this is
    not a clear-cut issue.  Fawn points this out in her book though
    she personally feels otherwise.  She also mentions that not one of the 
    wives of Joseph Smith claims to have born his children.  I have
    searched through some of the records of the Church and found one wife 
    that was sealed 'for eternity' to Joseph Smith in 1843 and married 
    'for time' to Brigham Young.  The evidence she presents about Joseph's 
    marriages has been largely anecdotal, secondary and indicates 
    marriages 'for eternity' and not necessarily 'for time'.  My study of 
    this is NOT complete and I plan to report later after more study and 
    digging.
    
    The accusations about adultery being practiced become somewhat moot if 
    there is little evidence of marriage 'for time'.  So far, the
    strongest evidence that Ms. Brodie has is not of marriages 'for time' 
    but 'for eternity' to Joseph Smith.  I know that some who reference
    her book have misstated her claims based on the evidence she presents.
    
    One more thing.  I've been thinking a lot about Joseph Smith and
    how he suffered for professing his beliefs.  Here is a man who was
    illegally jailed many times on trumped up charges of which he was
    innocent.  He was not perfect.  But, what did he expect to gain
    from this world?  If his motivations were selfish or adulterous,
    I expect his last spontaneous words might have echoed those
    motivations as last words often do.  But, Joseph Smith, when he knew 
    his life was coming to an end, placed himself in the line of fire 
    probably in an effort to save his friends.  His last words were, 
    'O Lord my God!'.  

    
    Steve

   > If his motivations were selfish or adulterous,
   > I expect his last spontaneous words might have echoed those
   > motivations as last words often do.  But, Joseph Smith, when he knew 
   > his life was coming to an end, placed himself in the line of fire 
   > probably in an effort to save his friends.  His last words were, 
   > 'O Lord my God!'.  

    Steve,

    It is interesting to note, in light of the "parallels" between 
    Mormonism and Masonry, that, when in dire trouble, a Mason only
    need shout "O Lord my God, is there no help for the widow's son?"
    and all brother Masons are bound by oath to help him. If this, in 
    fact, is what he was saying, then this is not exactly in keeping 
    with the martyr's image painted of him today.

    Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Joseph Smith have a 
    drawn revolver in his hand when he was shot? 

    I know I've opened yet another can of worms which I don't have time
    enough to follow up on, but so be it. The moderators may move this 
    to another or new topic if they wish, but I won't pursue the subject 
    further in note 199.

    Ed
    

    From what I remember, he did not have a drawn revolver in hand when
    he was shot.  He was in jail and I think a revolver was smuggled
    in, but I don't remember reading about it being in his hand.  I think
    one of his fellow prisoners had it, if indeed there was one.  
    
    From what I remember, he was shot by the window of a 2 story building
    and he fell out and died on the ground.  I don't know if he died
    as a result of being shot or falling out of the building.  Or a
    combination of the two.
    
    Also, several sources claim to have recorded his dying words.  I
    don't remember all the different variations of what he said and
    which ones are legitimate.
    
    scott

    The title of this note "Insecure in your beliefs" brings to mind
    that we all believe one thing or another.  We believe what we choose
    to believe or choose to disbelieve.  I can not argue the issue as
    to whether Joseph Smith actually was visited and commanded by God.
    I was not there.  Neither were you.  But I know for a fact that
    if God commanded me to break a law or do something that from outward
    appearances seemed wrong, I would do it.  He is my Savior and I
    know that he would NOT ask me to do anything without purpose.  What
    was asked of Joseph Smith was a test of faith, whether you choose
    to believe it or not.  I believe it and wonder where your pursuit
    to disprove it will lead.  Do you hope to persuade Mormons that
    you have an inside on what you call truth?  Or do you seek to destroy
    something that you really do not understand?  
    
    Quite frankly, the only proof that we have that Jesus Christ is
    our Savior is faith and I am sure that there are many non Christian
    brothers that feel they could prove otherwise.
    
    As mortals, we can only study and pray for answers.  In the latter
    days we will all know the truth.
                                                           
    Louise
    we all come face to face with our Savior, we have to depend on faith,
    study, and love.

Given the circumstances as detailed in History of the Church (I think it's 
volume 7, I was reading it recently), it was highly unlikely that Joseph Smith 
was asking for help.  Certainly this was the impression of the author of 
the account who also indicated that Joseph Smith did have a revolver and did 
try to use it to disuade the mob.

I appreciate Louise's comments.  And, I think that Ed's points are good in that
he usually points out that there are alternative viewpoints and ways to 
interpret the historical events surrounding Joseph Smith and the beginnings
of the Church.  In this case, it could be that Joseph Smith was crying out
for help, but the probability is (in my opinion after studying the account) 
low.  I feel it a higher probability that what the author described as a
martydom was true.  

With all things that the Church or its representatives proclaim there is a 
probability that they are true and a probability that they are false, excluding
discussion of personal spiritual confirmation of the truth of such 
proclamations.  I think Ed usually believes that the probability of things 
being false is higher than the probability of things being true and he is
free (and encouraged!) to argue his point.  I tend to believe the 
probabilities to swing toward the 'face value' of Church proclamations, so we 
are in disagreement much of the time.

In the debates that have permeated these notes, probablilities have been 
bantered about.  One is easily swayed by the wind (Matthew 7:24-29) unless 
authority is found.  There is no authority here, only references to such.
When it comes down to having to make a decision about what you believe
you should do so through prayer, study and pondering while being sensitive
to spiritual promptings.  I do this and as a result am 'secure' in my beliefs.


Steve

    re.46
    The book which came out two-three years ago on Emma Smith has an
    enormous amount of data on Joseph's marriages to other women and
    is a carefully documented piece.
    John
    

    RE.47,48
    Joseph indeed did have a revolver when he died. It was smuggled
    in to the jail cell, and when the charge began, he stuck it out
    the door, and emptied it, firing point-blank on the oncoming crowd.
    Whether any were killed, seriously injured, or even hit is not really
    known. He did gve it his best "shot" (pun intended), though.
    jpr
    

    re: .46
    
    John,  do you have a reference that I can track down?  Thanks!
    
    Steve

    Don't forget, guys, we are commanded in D&C
    
    	"Contend against no church, except it be the church of the devil".
    
    As far as Jesus testing people, one popped into my mind....to the
    woman at the well, He said
    
    	"Go and get thy husband...." in order that He may teach them
    both.  When she replied "I have no husband," the Savior confirmed
    this.  Altho the statement may have looked as if Christ made an
    assumption about her marital status, and then was proven wrong when
    she denied being married, we all know that this was not the case.
    He was looking for some kind of honesty/strength from her...perhaps
    the same as Joseph was looking from his leaders.
    
    	Also, don't forget that D&C makes the 'who' of plural marriage
    very specific.  It is *only* for women who are virgins, and who
    have never "belonged" to another man.  
    
    	(Obviously my contract got extended folks - until 9/30)
    
    			Sheryl