Would that all were prophets -- The
Hallmark Mormon test of Questioning Polygamy
From: Sterling D. Allan <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
To: David's Outcasts <davids_outcasts@listbot.com>;
SDA Friends list <SDA_friends@listbot.com>;
Greater Things Newsletter <Greater_Things@listbot.com>
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:47 AM
Subject: {888} Would that all were prophets
David's Outcasts - http://www.GreaterThings.com/OpenForum/Davids_Outcasts.htm
SUBJECT: Would that all were prophets -- The Hallmark Mormon test of
Questioning Polygamy
Laura,
Rather than call Joseph a "fallen" prophet, I think the far more
applicable term is "mortal, with follies" -- just as God intended it
to be. He does not want us hanging our salvation on a mortal; so by
design he builds in weaknesses, that we might look past the mortal to the
eternal.
It is the mindset that wants a dispensational prophet to be an infallible
spokesman for God from which the idea of a "true" or a
"fallen" prophet springs.
When we realize that God wants all of us to be prophets, and that in a
limited sense all already are prophets -- each person having a "word of
the Lord" to impart to us as it were, in whatever form, for us to discern
by our agency -- then the label of "true" or "fallen"
prophet is irrelevant, for it is the "prophet within" that we should
be concerned with.
Hence the Savior's admonition, "Let every man stand or fall by
himself, and not for another; or not trusting another. Seek unto my
Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask
in faith, believing that ye shall receive." (JST-Mark 9:44,45.)
Then comes the punch line: "And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him
that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor
and offend thee, pluck him out. It is better for thee to enter into the
kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell
fire." (JST-Mark 9:46,47.)
That applies to any ecclesiastical figure, whether it be Gordon B.
Hinckley, or the time-honored Moses, Joseph Smith, Isaiah, Nephi --
anyone. If we find a doctrine taught by one of these greats raised up by
the Lord, to be out of harmony with our conscience, it is not only our right
but our duty to remove that offending doctrine from our hearts and belief
systems.
I, with you Laura, believe that teaching polygamy to be a necessary
prerequisite incumbent upon all the most faithful saints is out of harmony
with the light of Christ within. I believe Paul felt the same way, and
said as much very eloquently in Galatians 5. As you know, I have
recorded and posted my belief on this matter for all the world to see.
www.greaterthings.com/Essays/polygamy.htm
Yes, polygamy may be exactly what some people need to experience to learn
certain lessons. But to expand the practice and teach it as incumbent
upon all is folly. We have to be willing to stand in such a belief even
though it goes so cross-grained with what the early venerated brethren of
Mormondom taught emphatically, including Joseph and Brigham.
It is for this reason that polygamy creates a wonderful test of this
principle for the most valiant of seekers.
Would to God that all were prophets.
That is my motto as expressed at the footer of each page of Greater Things
web site.
The day is coming when it will no longer be said, "Know ye the Lord,
For all will know him from the least unto the greatest of them."
Our willingness to step into our independence before the Lord is a crucial
step in this direction.
So I applaud you Laura for stating your mind in defiance of what you
believe to be in error, though your stance be hugely unpopular with so many
very stalwart believers, who are yet clinging to tradition and trusting in man
rather than relying on the truth that God gives to them inside.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
Follow God, Not Man Who is Prone to Fall
From: Laura S Shortridge <lsshortridge@juno.com>
To: davids_outcasts@listbot.com
<davids_outcasts@listbot.com>
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: Personal Saviors
David's Outcasts - http://www.GreaterThings.com/OpenForum/Davids_Outcasts.htm
Blayne,
my purpose here is not to ruffle your feathers. Sorry if I've done
such. I have just sat quietly by for years on Shulemna and now this
list, reading about how polygamy is necessary for exaltation. That
assertion has always felt wrong to me. As I've said before, it goes
against the Light of Christ within me.
It has not been until recently that I have finally grown enough spiritually
to "stand on my own two feet" so to speak, that I have had my own
personal revelations on this, so that I no longer need to lean on others to
form an opinion, etc. This is one chunk of meat that I have chewed and
swallowed on my own (by that I mean myself and my God, not with interference
from other mortals)... and it has given me much strength and
nourishment. I've finally taken a step forward and I am sharing what I
have learned.
We can quibble about how many wives Joseph Smith had and/or how many other
men's wives he took, etc., but the bottom line is... it doesn't matter to
me. Joseph Smith was a man and I don't worship him anymore than I
worship GBH. Not anymore.
If a prophet helps one on their path to Christ, then that person can gladly
accept the help until he/she is strong enough to continue on alone (which at
some point each of us must do). But when a prophet stands in the way of
a person attaining the Christ, then he is a fallen prophet.
I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but Joseph was a fallen
prophet. His mission was to bring forth the Book of Mormon not to start
an organized religion. He screwed up on April 6, 1830 when he organized
a state-recognized church. That was no more Father's will than giving
the 166-pages to Martin Harris.
Reading the descriptions of polygamy and Joseph Smith stealing other men's
wives is, if true, abhorrent. I would want to live nowhere near such a
people until they repented. I am grateful to Joseph Smith for his part
in bringing forth the BOM, I love him as a brother, I sorrow for his folly,
and I believe in his final days he recognized and repented of that
mistake. But he also paid his life for it. My message is an
admonishment to follow the Christ within, not the follies of man.
Love always, Laura
Joseph Smith Mortal with Follies, Not Fallen
From: Laura S Shortridge <lsshortridge@juno.com>
To: davids_outcasts@listbot.com
<davids_outcasts@listbot.com>
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: {888} Would that all were prophets
David's Outcasts - http://www.GreaterThings.com/OpenForum/Davids_Outcasts.htm
Thank you, Sterling. I stand corrected... Joseph was a mortal, with
follies, not a fallen prophet. I like the sound of that much better
anyway, 'cause I really love the guy :)
Love always,
Laura
Joseph Smith Not a Fallen
Prophet
Was Joseph Smith a Fallen Prophet?
by
Lynn Ridenhour
Laura writes in a recent post [see redaction above]:
"……when a prophet stands in the way of a person attaining the
Christ, then he is a fallen prophet. I never thought I'd hear myself say
this, but Joseph was a fallen prophet. His mission was to bring forth the
Book of Mormon, not to start an organized religion. He screwed up on April
6, 1830 when he organized a state-recognized church……."
I want to respond. And, believe me, my intent is to shed some light, not
turn up the heat. I'm aware, this is a touchy subject. I agree with the old
Baptist preacher who said, "……you have a right to disagree with me;
you do not have a right not to love me……"
I do not have a right to disagree with Laura unless my words are tempered
with kindness, unless I demonstrate love. In fact, Paul said, truth is never
truth unless it's spoken in love. "……but speaking the truth in love,
may [we] grow up into him in all things…….(Eph.4:15). Put into today's
vernacular——let's be grownups regarding our disagreements.
It's my prayer, that my disagreements are always tempered in much love for
my brothers and sisters.
For me, Laura's post evokes certain response/questions:
1) What is the true definition of "Church?"
2) Are obeying the laws of man (establishing a state-recognized church) and
obeying God always at odds? and,
3) What about this matter of apostasy?
Let's briefly examine each.
TRUE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "CHURCH:"
The word "church" is really a borrowed word. Early Christians
borrowed it from the Greeks and Romans of their day. Paul uses the word in its
original context in Acts 19. He travels to the city of Ephesus and worshippers
of Diana raise quite a stir against Paul. They cried "……Great is
Diana of the Ephesians." And the whole city was filled with confusion
(verse29). Everyone rushes into the threatre. "Some therefore cried one
thing, and some another; for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew
not wherefore they were come together" (verse 32). When they discovered
Paul was a Jew, for about the space of two hours the multitude cried out
"……Great is Diana of the Ephesians."
The townclerk became worried. For only Greeks and Romans could congregate
publicly in a lawful assembly. "……if ye enquire any thing concerning
other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly" (verse 39).
"……For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's
uproar," said the clerk, "there being no cause whereby we may give
an account of this concourse. And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the
assembly" (verses 40,41).
"Lawful citizens" were mixing with "unlawful citizens"
in a public setting——which was a no-no.
The word "assembly" in Acts 19 is the same Greek word used for
the word "church." It's the word "Ecclesia." As I said,
early Christians borrowed the word "church" from the Greeks and
Romans. The word really means"……lawful assembly." Its original
etymology is completely non-religious. One had to be a
"card-carrying" Greek or Roman in order to congregate lawfully and
publicly in Paul's day.
Then what constitutes a "lawful assembly" today for Christians?
What makes us "card-carrying" Christians? Knowing the answer to that
question would give us the definition of the word "church" in its
purest form. We find our answer in that famous interchange between Peter and
his Master (Mt.16).
Jesus asks his disciples his famous question, "……whom do men say
that I the Son of man am?" (verse 13). And Peter responds, "……Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (vs.16).
"……And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon
Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven" (vs.17).
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
(vs.18).
The famous interchange. Let's examine it.
First, becoming a member of His church is based upon a CONFESSION of faith,
not a profession of faith. There is a big difference. A profession is based
upon what men say (vs.14). What your preacher says, what the Bible says, what
your parents or friends say, or what your particular church says. It's based
upon human speculation and opinion.
Note Peter's response. It was not based upon "……some say……."
Peter did not say, "……I believe you're the Son of God." He said,
"……Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." No
qualifiers here. No opinion here. Peter made a confession of faith. And a
confession of faith is based upon what God says. Brothers and sisters, I
submit——there comes a time in every person's life when (s)he has to say
something. No qualifiers. No speculation. But we possess a word from heaven.
Note the Master's response to Peter. "……Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven" (vs.17). Peter had heard from heaven.
I find our Master's play on words quite interesting. Words, to the Hebrew
mind, carry layers of meanings. This is the only place in scripture that our
Lord calls Peter "Simon Bar-jona."
Simon means "hearkening unto," or "listening." Bar-jona
is two words. Bar means "the son of." Jona means "the
dove." By listening to the Holy Spirit, Peter became a son of the Spirit.
A son of the dove. And he discovered something that none of the others had
discovered——that Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, was actually the
Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus told him, "……Simon, Bar-jona, you're blessed."
So……
STEP ONE: To be a member of this "lawful assembly," one must
first have a personal revelation of who Jesus from Nazareth really is. No
sermons will do. No amount of Bible study is sufficient. Your membership must
be based upon a CONFESSION of faith, not a profession.
STEP TWO: That confession--based upon personal revelation joins you to
Christ and adds you to His church. The two are simultaneous. They occur at the
same time. We don't "……accept the Lord" and then decide to
"join His church."
Early Christians would at times "join" themselves to one another
and to Christ, but they were always "added" to the church (Acts
9:26, I Cor.6:17, Eph.4:16, Acts 2:47).
I know the lingo. We often say, "……now that I've become a
Christian, I need to find a good church to join." God beat you to it!
Enter Joseph Smith. Let's tie all this to Joseph's calling. And reconcile
the above understanding with Joseph's organizing the church on April 6th,
1830. Which brings us to……
THE MATTER OF OBEYING LAWS OF MAN & LAWS OF GOD:
Are obeying the laws of man (establishing a state-recognized church) and
obeying God always at odds?
Before we answer that, let's backtrack.
For Joseph, the concept of a latter-day "church" existed at first
without being linked to the need for a religious organization or for religious
ordinances. In a revelation to Joseph in the summer of 1828, God spoke of
"the people," "this people," and "my people"
before referring to "my church." This 1828 revelation equated
"my people" with a non-institutional "my church." At the
same time this revelation rejected all organized religion as "...they who
do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto
themselves to get gain" (D&C 10:56).
We must not forget——Christianity in the plan of Joseph Smith was not to
be a church, a religion, or a sect, but a complete change of society. I
believe if Joseph came back today and took a look around, he would say, "……this
is not what I meant."
So, the fact that Joseph organized the church according to the laws of New
York state does not mean——he did not understand the true meaning of
"church." I don't think we can draw that conclusion. To obey the
laws of man does not always mean——we're at odds with the laws of God.
I don't think Joseph was a "fallen prophet." Which is not to say
that all his prophecies were from the Spirit (although I do believe most of
his prophecies were led of the Spirit). Joseph himself said that he was only a
prophet when he was acting as one. Or we would phrase it--when he was acting
under the influence of the anointed Spirit. We can not assume that he was a
fallen prophet because he missed the mind of the Spirit at times. Just as, we
can not assume he was a fallen prophet because he was taken early in life. So
was Jesus. And Paul. And Peter. And James. And Phillip. And Stephen.
Enough said.
