[allquieton]

Cadence wrote:

Given what we have learned abut the human brain and its ability to play tricks on us how can we really know.

How can we know? I don’t think we can know with our logical brain–b/c like you said, it’s flawed. So the answer I think is to remember to rely on God, and not ourselves. I tend to rely on my logical brain–even though I know logically that I can’t trust it. (Which is illogical.) It’s just difficult to let go of…

Cadence wrote:

MOst of us have experienced the same feeling we get at church watching a movie that moves us.

I don’t get mixed up with this one. I find the witness of the Spirit to be a very distinct feeling. It feels just like a burning in the bosom. Never felt it during a movie–even a Church one. I know mostly everyone disagrees, but I think it’s the same feeling for everyone. And of course I know I could be wrong–it’s just what I have surmised so far.

Cadence wrote:

To this day I hope and pray for something that will override my doubts and be a witness to the degree I can not doubt.

It occurred to me once while reading the scriptures that if a person has faith they must also have doubts. Otherwise they have some kind of sure knowledge and it’s not faith. And they are not trusting God, which is hard to do.

Well, I empathize with you much Cadence. I feel like I’m coming out of the same corner.

[allquieton]

Old-Timer wrote:

4) Finally and foundationally, there are almost NO claims of seeing God, the Father, face-to-face in our canonized scriptures, and there are almost NO claims of seeing Jesus, the Christ, face-to-face either – at least that are recorded in such a way as to completely rule out visions rather than visitations.

Yeah–When I read up on it, I always try to tease out the difference between visions and visitations. But I don’t get too far. There are lots of clues, but nothing much that’s concrete. Still it’s an interesting question.

Here’s a pretty frustrating quote from Lehi: “Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or in other words, I have seen a vision.”

Often the scriptures say specifically that something was seen in a vision. So it seems reasonable to me to assume that if a vision/dream isn’t mentioned, we are dealing with something actually seen with the eyes. Of course such a simple rule doesn’t cover every possibility, but I think it’s a good guide.

It does seem true that seeing God the Father is a rare occurrence. But, as I read it, seeing Christ is not so uncommon. 2 Nephi 11:2-3 says Isaiah, Nephi and Jacob “verily saw” Christ, and that they are witnesses. Why not take them at their word? Besides this, it’s easy to forget, but there are hundreds of witnesses of the resurrected Christ mentioned in the scriptures.

Though I do find all of this interesting, at the same time I think it’s inconsequential. My expectation for a prophet, based on what I read in the Scriptures, is that they at least occasionally speak for God. Which means that they expressly say, “Thus sayeth the Lord,” or its equivalent. Also their story should ring true, and also I should feel the Spirit. That’s the bare minimum for me.

[allquieton]

Ray,

I guess I could have been more clear. I mean that being satisfied with a prophet receiving nothing more than promptings is unsettling for me. That is where the bar has been lowered I think.

Of course I am all for everyone receiving revelation. But I also like to believe and do believe that some very righteous people out there have seen God. Just as it describes in the scriptures. I also hope and believe this is possible for anyone, as God wills.

BTW–why do you think they wouldn’t they tell us?

[allquieton]

Well, I started reading up on Fowler. But I’m finding it pretty difficult to relate to much of it. Also a lot of his ideas and descriptions seem vague. How is he defining “faith?”

There ought to be a simple quiz you can take to suggest what stage you are at, according to Fowler.

[allquieton]

I think that lowering the bar for revelation is very similar to denying revelation.

The difference in magnitude between “feeling a prompting” and “speaking with God face to face” is enormous. I suspect that many who don’t really believe in direct revelation, express their doubt indirectly by focusing on notions like inspiration. Which may be polite, or may help avoid inner turmoil, but I’d rather have all the cards on the table.

[allquieton]

I have pretty strong debunking tendencies too. It’s not that I’m out to pop other people’s balloons. It’s that I want to get to the bottom of it all. I want the truth. And Harmony often gets in the way.

[allquieton]

I have wondered the same thing. Prophets in the Book of Mormon do mention getting guidance from the HG. But also, they frequently mention revelation given to them in dreams, in person by angels, or by hearing an actual voice. (Interestingly Nephi even differentiates between the voice of the Father and Christ.) They seem very particular about quoting actual words that God told them. Our church leaders don’t seem to do these things. They talk more about inspiration from the HG. I don’t think any of them have said anything close to “Thus saith the Lord,” for a long time.

That said, I don’t believe revelation has ended. I just think our church leaders may not be true prophets. Which doesn’t mean they are in any way unfit, or weren’t called, to lead the church. There may not be any prophets around right now. Or they may be somewhere where we aren’t hearing them. Hard to say. I’m still trying to get to the bottom of it.

[allquieton]

I do like to debate this issue, but for now I’m tapping out before this thread becomes my life’s work. Sorry if I didn’t respond to you–I just don’t have the time and energy right now to reply to each one of your comments. Anyhow, I think other researchers have already addressed, better than I am able to, most of the questions coming up.

I did read every post on this thread, and I have learned a lot. Feel free to send me anything to read/consider on the matter.

(Thanks for posting the letter Just Me–it was in fact a reading pleasure. HiJolly, I’m still trying to find out more about this Nauvoo Temple book, but not having much luck–maybe you could point me in the right direction…)

I’m sure I will be around. This seems like a very interesting and helpful crowd. It’s a relief to find a community that, although they might disagree with the Church on certain matters, are still pro-LDS.

[allquieton]

I guess the book info didn’t ever make it into the new thread. Thanks for pointing it out Tom.

Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy

by Richard and Pamela Price

Also they have a website with the entire content of the book on it:

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

[allquieton]

MWallace57,

I don’t think you understand where I’m coming from. I don’t need JS to be perfect, or financially gifted, or the stick pulling champion of New York. I don’t need him to be anything.

But based on the evidence, I don’t think he was a polygamist. And so I say it. That’s pretty much it. I can’t say I have zero emotional attachment to the idea. It’s true, I like the idea, but not enough I think to interfere with my judgment. I think I’m pretty realistic. If it is proved he was polygamist, I can accept that.

Mostly everyone disagrees with the idea that I accept. But also, mostly (with a few exceptions) they have only heard one side of the story and have an entire framework built around JS polygamy.

[allquieton]

I don’t have all the answers regarding Law. But:

1. The Higbees did confess to lying about Joseph. So did Bennett.

2. Bennett kept lying (indisputably) about Joseph as long as he lived. He was a sworn enemy of JS.

3. Bennett and the Higbees and apparently the Fosters are all close associates. Law is tied in with the Higbees and the Fosters.

4. Joseph told the truth about the Higbees and Bennett. So did others. Their stories all agreed with the confessions. (So why doubt the confessions?)

5. When you say Joseph was lying to cover his own wickedness, you are saying known liars are telling the truth–about something they confessed to lying about. Who sided with JS on the polygamy denial that is a known liar?. And who admitted to lying about that particular thing?

If JS had started saying things that aligned with lies that Bennett and the Higbees had confessed to I wouldn’t trust it either.

I read an article where Law kept saying he had detectives or spies and that’s how he knew what JS was up to. I wonder if these detectives weren’t enemies of JS, poisoning Law against him. As for Law’s wife, I guess it’s harder to explain her accusations, but at the same time it’s not hard to think of scenarios where she might lie. I’ll keep reading.

[allquieton]

I have a lot to respond to–please be patient with me.

Mister Curie,

I dug up some more info on William Law. Besides associating closely with the despicable Higbees, he apparently was in with some Fosters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints

Could these be the same Fosters that apparently ran a brothel next to the temple in Nauvoo, with John C. Bennett?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/John_C._Bennett/Brothel_at_Nauvoo

If so, I think it’s fair to throw out Law’s testimony as garbage.

[allquieton]

Some thoughts:

Okay, I will read more about William Law. Just for starters though, he said a bunch of screwy things about Joseph. That JS was trying to poison him and have Indians kill him. Also he said Emma was in on the polygamy thing and that she was a mean course woman. He said a lot of things like this that don’t agree with the usual story. Also he started his own church and the two Higbee bros. were among the first to join–these are the two that confessed to seducing women and blaming it on JS. Which the women also testified to. None of this disproves Law’s claim–but none of it looks very good for him either.

I used to believe the JS polygamy story whole heartedly (though it never did sit well with me). One of the reasons I was convinced otherwise is b/c there is so much relevant history that I was never aware of. The polygamous Cochranites that we sent missionaries to, the outright confessions by people that they invented the lie about JS secretly practicing polygamy, Joseph’s many public denials of polygamy. These are just a few of many.

Hawkgirl, the argument that JS had to keep polygamy secret is weak I think. For starters the Cochranites taught it openly. Then there was the Peacemaker author, Udney Hay Jacob, who before he joined the church, wrote a pro-polygamy book, and even sent it to the President to try to get it published. There may have been others nearby openly practicing polygamy too.

Also, if Joseph intended to introduce polygamy eventually, you might think he would try to soften it up and sell it instead of preaching loudly against it. Also, Joseph Smith wrote an awful lot. Journals, letters, etc. Why is there nothing in his handwriting about polygamy. Or even hinting at it.

One more thing–if he was as shady as some maintain, I would expect to be able to detect something screwy that he wrote. I’ve read writings from known religious frauds, false prophets, etc. They all tend to say screwy things that don’t make sense, or at least slip in something screwy into an argument that does make sense. I don’t get this from Joseph either. What I have read of Joseph’s journals indicates reasonable sounding surprise and shock at the accusations against him, and at the conduct of others.

Well, MisterCurie, I appreciate you digging up the William Law statement. I will read more about it. At the same time, after having read a comprehensive, well documented case against JS polygamy I need more than one (or 2 or 3) evidences to reject it. It sounds like you also are not willing to change your view based on a few evidences that there is a possible alternate explanation for. So I hope you do read JSFP. And I guess I will stay open to hearing the opposing viewpoint.

Oh, with the Section 132 revelation. Apparently it is in BY’s handwriting. And BY stated that the original was destroyed by Emma, but luckily he had the only surviving copy. Fishy, if you ask me. Also, he waited until 1876 to put it in the D+C replacing the Section 101 Article on Marriage (which specifically denies polygamy and preaches monogamy).

[allquieton]

Higbee confessed too.

JSFP wrote:

Affidavit of C. L. Higbee

State of Illinois

City of Nauvoo

Personally appeared before me Daniel H. Wells, an alderman of said city, C. L. Higbee, who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that he never was taught anything in the least contrary to the strictest principles of the gospel or of virtue, of the laws of God or of man, under any circumstances or upon any occasion, either directly or indirectly, in word or deed by Joseph Smith, and that he never knew said Smith to countenance any improper conduct whatever, either in public or in private, and that he never did teach me in private or public that an illicit intercourse with females was under any circumstances justifiable and that he never knew him so to teach others.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of May 1842. Daniel H. Wells, Alderman. (Affidavits and Certificates, August 31, 1842)

Of course you can hold to the theory that the confessions were false. But I thought it would be interesting to post them.

[allquieton]

JSFP wrote:

[Affidavit of Matilda J. Nyman]

Nauvoo, May 21, 1842.

During this spring Chauncy L. Higbee, kept company with me from time to time, and, as I have since learned, wickedly deceitfully, and with lies in his mouth, urged me vehemently to yield to his desires; that there could be no wrong in having sexual intercourse with any female that could keep the same to herself;—most villianously and lyingly stating that he had been so instructed by Joseph Smith, and that there was no sin where there was no accuser:—Also vowing he would marry me. Not succeeding, he, on one occasion, brought one, who affirmed that such intercourse was tolerated by the heads of the Church. I have since found him also to be a lying conspirator against female virtue and chastity, having never received such teachings from the heads of the church; but I was at the time partially influenced to believe in consequence of the source from whom I received it.

I yielded and become subject to the will of my seducer, Chauncey L. Higbee: and having since found out to my satisfaction, that a number of wicked men have conspired to use the name of Joseph Smith, or the heads of the Church, falsely and wickedly to enable them to gratify their lusts, thereby destroying female innocence and virtue, I repent before God and my brethren and ask forgiveness.

I further testify that I never had any personal acquaintance with Joseph Smith and never heard him teach such doctrines as Higbee, stated either directly or indirectly.

Matilda J. Nyman.

State of Illinois, ss

City of Nauvoo.

There are several women who wrote statements saying more or less the same thing with regard to Bennett and Higbee. The entire Relief Society, something like 1000 women (including Eliza R. Snow) signed a statement too around this time denying that church leaders taught polygamy publicly or privately.

[Author]

Posts