I already found that source and skimmed through other LDS sources; that’s why I asked. I was hoping for more clarification.


Interesting that you claim that, when there happens to be a whole court case centered around this where Joseph Smith is charged with disorderly person (New York, March 1826). I found it quite intriguing.


What promises did he break?


I would have guessed that he was made a prophet according to LDS belief due to his obedience.

This official statement surprises me.

To claim the ancient prophets spoke of him begs the question-

Which ancient prophets spoke of Joseph Smith?



Smith claimed he was not a polygamist. ’Spiritual wifery’ was brought into Nauvoo by Young and others, who had contact with a commune type religion where ”Spiritual wifery” was practiced. CoC historians provide historical documentation that Joseph Smith found this idea to be repulsive and he rejected it, causing friction among the Nauvoo era leaders.

Meanwhile, the evidence for an extramarital affair with Fanny Alger exists before Smith’s death. An affair. Not a marriage. Fanny Alger was boarding at the Smith home. We then see in historical accounts that Smith liked to groom very young women, 15, 16, 17 year olds, who either lived in his home as guests or lived very nearby. Never hearing stories of commanded polygamy and flaming swords and the like until the Mormons who followed the advocate of spiritual wifery (Young), are in Utah and using Smith as their example.

Smith introduces the Mormon temple endowment, based on his experience in Freemasonry, but claims of Smith being sealed to multiple women, including sealing women to Smith after his death, are from Young and his followers, and occurred in Utah. Not before.

Of course the current LDS Church is going to continue the stories that Young started. They are like a Ponzi schemer, who will show you whatever you need to see.

My favorite show-me ”evidence” is a picture of a picture of a rock, that is The Actual Seer Stone that Smith used in a hat to translate the BoM. Mormons eat that up, but they are eating air. If it weren’t so tragic, it would be hilarious.



I have three words for you. Oh. My. Heck.

Well if he claimed not to be a polygamist, what did J. Smith claim he was?
Or did he deny the extramarital relationships altogether?


There were no seer stones as JS claimed he used to translate the “gold plates” into the BoM.

If the LDS were to be believed then the promise of Jesus Christ to not let the gates of hell prevail against His church would have been a lie. According to LDS belief the church founded by Christ fell into apostasy, failed, the gates of hell prevailing. I didn’t say Jesus broke any promise to his people, but to believe LDS belief you would have to believe Jesus broke that promise.

I believe Jesus has been faithful to His Church and never left it or let it fail. I believe Jesus Christ ascended into heaven just as it states Mark 16:19-20, Luke 24:50-53, and Acts 1: 6-12. Read those and try to reconcile them with Joseph Smith’s claim that Jesus went to America after the resurrection.


So did J. Smith put the seer stones into a hat?

I remember a picture of him looking into a hat.


I’ve had this discussion with Mormons before. Their claim is that for a period of time, Satan was in control, but that ultimately, the truth was restored and righteousness reigned. In that regard, Satan did not prevail. He won the battle, but not the war sort of thing . . .

That aside, nothing about the apostasy and restoration makes any sense to anyone with any degree of logical thought. It, like most things in the Mormon church, is a lie.


If satan was in control for even a millisecond that would equate to saying Jesus’ promise to protect the Church was a lie.


Their reply is that Satan was never in charge. God allowed the priesthood to be taken away for a period of time. God allowed Satan to take over for a little while. This was God’s doing. He was always in control.


Satan in charge = Gates of hell

Can’t happen.


That’s my point. They claim that Satan was never in charge.


“God allowed satan to take over for a little while” means satan was in charge.


Not the way I read it and certainly not the way I meant it. I’m not in any way defending Mormons. I’m just trying to explain them. Just because God temporarily withdrew the priesthood from the earth which allowed Satan to have more influence for a period of time does not mean that God lost control. It means that he maintained control but just allowed evil to spread. The dark ages were the dark ages because the light of the true gospel was not on the earth. That’s what Mormons often say, anyway. I don’t agree with it. I’m just explaining it.


I know you are only explaining it- I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. I’m taking issue with the LDS teaching, not shooting you, the messenger. :blush:


Mormons do not respect us. They teach that our church is abominable, that our ministers are corrupt and that they teach the words of man, not God, that they worship God with their lips but that their hearts are far from God. This is not a joke. This is sick.


Okay, I’m thinking this through.

If LDS teach that God allowed the evil one to spread darkness, that means they were working together. Cooperating.

We can never do evil to get something good.
Therefore, God would never sanction, or cooperate with evil to allow for something good to happen.

He allows us to do evil because we have free will.

Interesting conversation…

*I agree that we have to take the LDS missionary efforts seriously and make sure people understand what they truly believe.


I’m not seeing anything inflammatory in your posts, Lemuel. Nor have I ever witnessed any name calling on your part. Whoever is flagging your posts must not realize that you are a former Mormon who speaks the truth about them without malice.


I’m being flagged by people who know somewhat of my background. I don’t think I am guilty of name calling, with exceptions like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. But not any of the people on this forum. As far as inflammatory posts, I just say what I know. I know I probably ought to bite my lip a little more often.


I agree.

Being straight forward with the truth from our POV is the whole purpose for the discussion.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit