It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Joseph did not teach polygamy. I think that because of the following:
1. The Book of Mormon teaches against polygamy, calling it an abomination.
2. The one single verse used as a “loophole” in Jacob’s sermon must be read out of context to support the reading of it in an interpretation that would allow for polygamy.
3. Doctrine and Covenants 1835 Edition Section 101 declares unmistakably that one man should have but one wife. This was the D&C of Joseph’s lifetime.
4. All public statements made by Joseph Smith during his lifetime flatly condemned polygamy. All statements attributing it to him are presented after his death when he could not rationalize for nor defend against the statements.
5. Section 132’s origins are highly suspicious. If Brigham had “the keys” than he should have been able to receive his own revelation instead of borrowing authority from a dead prophet by claiming he had this hand-me down revelation that contradicts the Book of Mormon.
5. Emma’s personal statements denied Joseph was unfaithful to her. A broken hearted wife is the first to throw a cheating bum out on the street. Her testimony of his innocence has a lot of weight.
6. Accounts of Emma fighting against Joseph’s polygamous relationships all come from polygamous Utah Mormons who had a vested interest in discrediting her.
7. Joseph’s sons defended their father’s name against polygamy charges.
8. The two affidavit books collected in Utah are statements given by women who were vested in defending the polygamous lifestyle they had lived by for decades. They gave these statements long after Joseph was gone and was unable to give a response to.
9. William Clayton’s journal describes Joseph teaching polygamy…however, he wrote two journals covering the Nauvoo time period…the journal entries are published chronologically but I believe the second journal was written later, for example during his Utah years when he was also re-writing the official History of the Church under the direction of Brigham Young.
10. Beyond direct source material such as publications printed during the lifetime of the individual or journal entries that can be proven to be legitimately written by a person directly involved, everything else is just a repeat of what someone else said…second and third hand accounts that are unreliable. Just about all of the material we have available to us has been tampered with in some way over the years.
11. Of course, I hold the possibility open that I could be wrong about these things, but I think there is reason to believe that Joseph Smith was not teaching anything like what we have been told.
12. And last of all, “do unto others as you would have done unto you.” And “inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me.” These teachings of Christ are sufficient alone for a man to understand that if he doesn’t want to share his wife with another man, then he ought not to ask her to share him with another woman. So, if Joseph was teaching such a doctrine, and publicly lying about it…then it really does not look like anything of Christ to me.
I recommend the following book for your consideration:
JOSEPH FOUGHT POLYGAMY
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Sunday, July 5, 2015
ENTRY 42 SPIRIT OF PROPHECY
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Even the angels shy away from praise and shun pledges of loyalty. They teach others to give these things to Jesus Christ alone. In all things they testify of Christ and by so doing they prophecy.
For forty minutes of your time, you can listen to the following testimony of Christ that is offered in a true spirit of prophecy. Shall I dismiss this man's message because he has no recognized authority?
Saturday, July 4, 2015
ENTRY 41 HISTORY
There is enough material to make the case for either side of the discussion, and even for third or fourth theories...as if we are left to ourselves to see which view has the most appeal to our hearts. We prove nothing conclusively about the past but demonstrate everything about our own desires as we selectively filter the material before us.
Friday, July 3, 2015
ENTRY 40 GENTILES
Who are the
Gentiles?
There is a
curious definition in the online version of the Miriam-Webster Dictionary:
Full
Definition of GENTILE
1
often capitalized: a person of
a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially: a Christian
as distinguished from a Jew
3
often capitalized: a
non-Mormon
I understood
that the most common use of the term would be the first definition: a person of a non-Jewish nation. However, I was taken aback a little when I
saw that third definition: a
non-Mormon. Could the Mormon use of the
term be so widespread and common that it would warrant a distinctive definition
within the dictionary? I had to look
into it a little more, so I checked a second dictionary site:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gentile
gentile
[jen-tahyl]
adjective, ( sometimes initial capital letter)
1. of or relating to any people not Jewish.
2. Christian, as distinguished from Jewish.
3. Mormon Church. not Mormon.
4.heathen or pagan.
5.(of a linguistic expression) expressing
nationality or
local origins.
6.of or relating to a tribe, clan, people, nation, etc.
There it is again. How many dictionaries are now including this
definition?
Oddly enough, the definition seems
to lack…something. It does not really
seem congruent with how Mormons use the term itself when they actually do use
it. In daily life, when has a Mormon
ever referred to others as “Gentiles”?
For example, did you ever hear a Mormon suggest that we go across the
street to help the Gentiles shovel the walks?
Did a Mormon ever say, “Let’s also invite the Gentiles to our Barbeque?”
It is not really a term that is commonly
used except in discussion of scriptural references for various groups of
people. Mormons do not really even speak
in terms of sending missionaries out to convert the Gentiles. Missionaries are sent out to gather the House
of Israel. The gathering is a
self-selecting process through conversion.
From being raised in the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and listening to the teachings of leaders and
reading the books of authoritative Mormons, my understanding of Mormon theology
has been that we view ourselves as descendants of the tribes of Israel. We send the missionaries out to gather the
tribes of Israel who have been scattered among the nations of the world. Those who are stirred in the heart by
communication from the Holy Ghost will recognize the message within the Book of
Mormon as a message to them. They will view
this message as a call to repent and gather once again. Having been converted to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, the convert becomes baptized and confirmed a member of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From
that point on, the convert is part of the House of Israel. Ultimately speaking, the tribes of Israel are
all one family, children of Jacob who would also belong to the seed of
Abraham. The House of Israel is God’s covenant
people. They are God’s covenant people
because the promises made to Abraham are then fulfilled in his posterity. The posterity receives and makes covenants
with God in the temple.
The understanding that the convert
is now a member of the House of Israel is especially apparent when a Patriarchal
Blessing is administered. The contents
of the blessing are tailored by inspiration to the specific individual. However, every patriarchal blessing includes
a declaration of lineage belonging to one of the Tribes of Israel. In this way, the member of the church learns
how they are included within the House of Israel.
The Gentiles would include those
who are not of this lineage. That is to
say, not of the lineage of the House of Israel.
However if a soul is not literally of the seed of Abraham, they may
become so through adoption. It has also been
taught that the scattering of Israel was so prevalent and wide spread that at
this point every nation now includes members of this family. It has also been postulated that the blood of
Abraham now runs through probably every soul on earth and therefore the only
thing that would prevent a person from being included within the family would
be a lack of faith in the Gospel.
So I suppose with that consideration,
then we could say that Mormons would define Gentiles as Non-Mormons…with the
understanding that they could be included within the House of Israel if they so
choose to convert.
The problem is that no one else in
the world uses the word Gentile in that manner.
No doubt it would be amusing if not irritating to the rest of the
religious world to find a Mormon viewing an orthodox Jew as a Gentile. Perhaps it is also irritating (if not amusing) for
many Christians to learn that Mormons also think of themselves as
Christians.
If we can’t come to an agreement
on the definition of terms, we at least have to allow the individual the
freedom to self-identify on their own terms.
Allowing others to apply the terminology to their own world viewpoint,
allows us the freedom to do the same.
Insisting that Christians are those who only believe X and Jews are
those who only believe Y and Mormons are only those who believe Z, creates a
limitation upon ourselves that prevents true understanding across the spectrum
of differing beliefs. What if someone
believes X and Y and under some conditions Z?
Do they belong to all three groups?
Or do they belong to none of the groups? Who is better qualified to decide which group they feel most comfortable identifying with than the individual themselves? Therefore, when we are listening to others, we must understand how they define the terms and allow them the freedom to use those terms in a manner that allows them to communicate freely with us.
The usage of the word “Gentile” has evolved over the centuries. It first came into use in and around the 1400's. And as you can see, our dictionaries reflect the evolution of the word to reflect the language of the people at the time of the dictionary's publication. And yet the challenge in understanding the word goes even beyond evolution within a language because the scriptures we read today did not come from English at all. Translations are never so simple as matching up two words in a language-to-language dictionary. Languages are nuanced with idioms and expressions that fit the personality of the culture. To make a translation, you must not only be fluent in both languages, you must also be fluent in the culture.
The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic. What we now read as Gentile in the Old Testament was translated from “Goi” or the plural “Goyim”. The New Testament was translated from Greek. What we now read as Gentile in the New Testament came from the word "Ethnos" (Ethne for the plural form). The word Goi had much more flexible usage than we realize. It had the meaning of a collective body of people, especially a nation of people or nations of people. The context of the word had to be considered during the translation process and often the translators of our King James Bible (1600s) had to use different words for an English translation of the word Goi. Sometimes it was translated to heathen, nation, people and another. In some instances the word was even used to refer to the House of Israel when speaking of the House of Israel as a nation. So the word Gentile is really more of a reflection of 1600 era Protestant usage than it is of anything else.
The evolution of the word has now reached our generation and for the most part the usage is those not of the Jewish heritage. The general idea being that the word had once been used to include "those not of the House of Israel before the scattering of the ten tribes" and then only the House of Judah after the scattering of the tribes of Israel. Although there are also those who use the term to mean not of Christianity. And apparently, there are those who use the term to mean those who are not of Mormon heritage.
The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic. What we now read as Gentile in the Old Testament was translated from “Goi” or the plural “Goyim”. The New Testament was translated from Greek. What we now read as Gentile in the New Testament came from the word "Ethnos" (Ethne for the plural form). The word Goi had much more flexible usage than we realize. It had the meaning of a collective body of people, especially a nation of people or nations of people. The context of the word had to be considered during the translation process and often the translators of our King James Bible (1600s) had to use different words for an English translation of the word Goi. Sometimes it was translated to heathen, nation, people and another. In some instances the word was even used to refer to the House of Israel when speaking of the House of Israel as a nation. So the word Gentile is really more of a reflection of 1600 era Protestant usage than it is of anything else.
The evolution of the word has now reached our generation and for the most part the usage is those not of the Jewish heritage. The general idea being that the word had once been used to include "those not of the House of Israel before the scattering of the ten tribes" and then only the House of Judah after the scattering of the tribes of Israel. Although there are also those who use the term to mean not of Christianity. And apparently, there are those who use the term to mean those who are not of Mormon heritage.
However, to put it in simple terms,
Gentile as used by ancient writers really means “those other guys”, “not us”, “not our nation”.
This blog entry is intended for
the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those who self-identify as Mormon and
incidentally have the habit of pronouncing the word Mormon as “Christian”. I happen to be one of those. I would like to discuss how we use the word
Gentile when we study the Book of Mormon.
Realizing that the common usage
of the word Gentile is “those other guys”, a careful crosscheck in the Book of
Mormon will show that this definition provides a startling result. However it is the best definition for those
who believe the Book of Mormon is scripture from God. Without using that concept of Gentile when we read the Book of Mormon,
we will ultimately fail to comprehend the message intended by the Book of Mormon's original authors.
Why? Because the Book of Mormon was written
by prophets and from their viewpoint they saw us as …THOSE OTHER GUYS. The writers of the
Book of Mormon were descendants of Lehi who came out of Jerusalem. Lehi descended from Joseph. He was of the house
of Israel. He kept a record. And his son Nephi kept a record. And their descendants kept a record and they
kept this record for the purpose of convincing their posterity that Jesus was
the Christ.
They also kept this record for the purpose of convincing three distinctive groups that Jesus was the Christ. Those three groups were listed in the title page of the Book of Mormon and include the Lamanites who are a Remnant of the House of Israel, the Jews, and also the Gentiles.
They also kept this record for the purpose of convincing three distinctive groups that Jesus was the Christ. Those three groups were listed in the title page of the Book of Mormon and include the Lamanites who are a Remnant of the House of Israel, the Jews, and also the Gentiles.
Notice that the children of Lehi,
the Lamanites are included as the House of Israel. The Jews are also a separately defined
group. The Jews were the nation that Lehi had left behind in Jerusalem when he fled 600 years prior to the birth of Christ. So, if you are not a descendant of
Lehi and you are not a Jew, of what group are you in Book of Mormon terms? There is only one group left…you are a Gentile.
Now I know what the theology is
that is taught from the pulpit in church.
I know many books have been written stating otherwise, and we must allow
others the freedom to define the terms for their own purposes if we are to
understand the message they were trying to communicate as they spoke. However, if we are to accept the Book of
Mormon as a work of scripture, accepting it for what it claims to be…then we
must accept the terms that are defined by the authors of the Book of Mormon
as we read the Book of Mormon.
From the beginning of the record, the Book of Mormon tells us there are three groups of people that will be discussed in the record. The authors of the record have defined the groups of people thus:
From the beginning of the record, the Book of Mormon tells us there are three groups of people that will be discussed in the record. The authors of the record have defined the groups of people thus:
1.
Remnant of the House of Israel = Descendants
of Lehi
2.
Jews = those
who remain in Jerusalem
3.
Gentiles =
those who bring forth “this record” (the Book of Mormon).
Who brought forth the Book of
Mormon? The Gentiles.
Therefore, when reading the Book
of Mormon, understand that the converts of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints are NOT the House of Israel. Not in Book of Mormon terms. The converts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the
Gentiles.
This definition changes everything
you will see in the Book of Mormon as you read it. It will be like looking at one of those funny
abstract pictures that looks like nothing but different shades of the same
color, but as you adjust your focus to a different level, a three dimensional
picture begins to take shape. What was
once a confusing looking mess suddenly has clarity and focus that you never
realized before. And that is when you find the amazing three dimensional picture. If you want the Isaiah chapters in the Book of
Mormon to make sense…change your focus.
If you want to recognize who the call to repentance was that Mormon was declaring, change your focus. Realize YOU are the Gentiles they were talking about. We are “those other guys” that the prophets
of the Book of Mormon were writing about.
Joseph Smith knew this when he
offered the dedicatory prayer in the Kirtland temple.
“Now these words, O Lord, we have
spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which though
hast given us, who are identified with
the Gentiles.” (D&C 109:60)
He then goes
on to pray for the "other groups" including the return of Judah to the lands
given to Abraham and including the House of Israel driven to the ends of the
earth.
None of this
negates any of the other concepts related to the House of Israel that we have been taught. We may very well be of the tribes. The tribes are prophesied to gather. You are free to define the terms for your own
understanding and declare that you are Mormon, Christian, and of the House of
Israel. The point is, that when you read
the Book of Mormon, the authors of that book have placed you in a different
group for their own purposes. They did
this, because they wanted us to understand something. They wanted us to understand how to repent of
our specific sins of our specific day and age. They gave us a warning that we might repent and come unto
Christ. They did this for our benefit. We are that other nation. We are those Gentiles.
I don't think after reading this today, I have fully persuaded you about just how profound this understanding of who the Gentiles really are in the Book of Mormon is. So, I hope to give specific examples in a later post. Wednesday, July 1, 2015
ENTRY 39 WHO OWNS THE WORDS
As mentioned in a previous post, the problem with
overstating a speaker’s position can create a distortion of the truth. For
example, claiming a man is speaking by revelation, when in fact, the man
himself is not even making such a claim.
Doing so, not only over magnifies the intentions of the individual, it
also warps the message into something that was never meant by the original
speaker. Here is an example:
Joseph made a statement that sounded boastful, and unbecoming a prophet.
However, Joseph's quote is taken out of context
Joseph Smith is
reported as saying:
I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has
ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam...
Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did
such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day
Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. Volume 6 link
Question: Is the quote of Joseph Smith's
"boasting" of keeping the Church intact accurate?
The entries in History of the Church were made by scribes after Joseph's death
Even in the History of the Church (where the speech is recreated in 6:408-409), it is described as resting upon a "synopsis" by Thomas Bullock. Is it, therefore, a primary source? Arguably not.[6]
But there are further questions. The date of the sermon is 26 May 1844. A month later, the Prophet was dead. Did he supervise this entry? No. The last years of his entries in the History of the Church were actually made by others after his death.[7] It was common at the time for other authors to write as if someone else was speaking. So, these are not Joseph's words--they are the words which others (who admired him enormously after his murder) put in his mouth. The basic content is more likely to be accurate than the subtle details of tone and style.
This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called "Documentary History." Even when it seems to have Joseph Smith speaking in the first person, the History of the Church may or may not actually be representing Joseph Smith's actual voice. (Dean Jessee's "Preface" to his collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that entered into Joseph's later statements which was quite foreign to the man himself--this came not because Joseph suddenly became egotistical, but because the voice we hear is no longer Joseph's: it is the work of scribes following his death. They felt comfortable "praising" Joseph in ways which he would probably not have used.)
The entries in History of the Church were made by scribes after Joseph's death
Even in the History of the Church (where the speech is recreated in 6:408-409), it is described as resting upon a "synopsis" by Thomas Bullock. Is it, therefore, a primary source? Arguably not.[6]
But there are further questions. The date of the sermon is 26 May 1844. A month later, the Prophet was dead. Did he supervise this entry? No. The last years of his entries in the History of the Church were actually made by others after his death.[7] It was common at the time for other authors to write as if someone else was speaking. So, these are not Joseph's words--they are the words which others (who admired him enormously after his murder) put in his mouth. The basic content is more likely to be accurate than the subtle details of tone and style.
This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called "Documentary History." Even when it seems to have Joseph Smith speaking in the first person, the History of the Church may or may not actually be representing Joseph Smith's actual voice. (Dean Jessee's "Preface" to his collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that entered into Joseph's later statements which was quite foreign to the man himself--this came not because Joseph suddenly became egotistical, but because the voice we hear is no longer Joseph's: it is the work of scribes following his death. They felt comfortable "praising" Joseph in ways which he would probably not have used.)
·
The above came from
the following link...
http://en.fairmormon.org/.../Did_Joseph_Smith_'boast'_of...
http://en.fairmormon.org/.../Did_Joseph_Smith_'boast'_of...
Some of things attributed to Joseph Smith that were
included in the History of the Church came from publications written by John C.
Bennett after he was forced out of Nauvoo. John C. Bennett wrote his expose in
retaliation. When William Clayton under the direction of Brigham Young in Utah
compiled the History of the Church they would pull from many sources and occasionally
would borrow from Bennett’s Expose to fill in the gaps to support their current
teachings within the Utah church. These quotes were cited as "source
unknown" but still attributed to Joseph. How reliable was Bennett’s
expose? If you spend a little time
reading it, you discover he was grossly exaggerating.
The above quote of Joseph boasting is thought to be traced
to Thomas Bullock. This would have been
a faithful follower, but as he wrote his notes he filtered it through the lens
of his own perceptions. This would have
been what he thought Joseph was saying, not a word for word transcript. The trouble is that we don’t even know for
certain if it was Thomas Bullock as the source.
That is just the best source trail we can determine. So what we really have here is William
Clayton’s interpretation on Thomas Bullock’s interpretation on Joseph Smith’s
words. By the time the History of the
Church was being prepared for print in Utah, Joseph was long since gone. He was martyred, which made him epic hero
status among all those who remained as followers. They took his words and magnified them to
reflect a character that really did not exist.
But we can observe one thing about this quote as we read by the spirit
of Christ, since it clearly portrays pride and vanity, we know that whoever was
saying it was not speaking by the direction of Christ. Even if it was an exact transcript of his
words and accurately portrays the intentions of his message, we know that this
is not a message delivered by the revelation of God. However, I think it is a message that more
accurately portrays the concept of Joseph that the Utah Saints had built up of
the man after he had been murdered.
The more accurate and reliable statements would be first
person journal accounts. Documents
personally written and published during someone’s lifetime have more
reliability. When books are acknowledged
by personal ownership then we have words from the individual which we can know
they took ownership of.
Understanding that changes like this were done to the
records is important if we are to have an accurate understanding of what has
been left to us as an inheritance of our traditions both in religion and in scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)