Robert Fields

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Mormons: We are Christians, too

Most Community of Christ historians reject the old position based on documents not known to early RLDS historians. The affidavits although many are impressed by them i feel can be challenged on a number of points either via alternative interpretation, or other problems. But when you are faced with a document contemporary with Nauvoo its harder, but not impossible to argue for traditional interpretations. Now i myself still favor Joseph Smiths private secretary Whiteheads claim the LDS published version was an altered forgery. Although i acknowledge like any man he could have lied about the tampering, But if the thing is a forgery William Clayton the one who claimed the LDS published version was a faithful reproduction of the destroyed revelation is discredited. But i could see him as editing his journal in a copy to make Joseph Smith the author of the polygamy the Apostles got into. Historians that trust such stuff cannot know themselves whether a document is, or is not authentic. They seldom submit old looking documents to independent document testing, but instead trust dates. They might be right to trust the dates in his journal, but if he made interlopations into it while editing it in a spurious copy who would catch him? With Mark Hoffmans forgeries the same historians who say he was a polygamist were fooled by the dates on them. They trusted the conclusions of the document experts that his old looking documents were authentic. After his murders more sophisicated tests his document experts did not know of were developed that proved them forgeries. Not saying Clayton's Journal is a fake as they are probably authentic, but i see no problem in exploring the possibility he could have faked entry's in an edited version of them making Joseph Smith the author of the Apostles polygamy. Rather than saying documents contemporary with Joseph Smith are not authentic i encourage independent document testing. Such testing would determine the exact dating of the paper, whether interlopations were added years later. By turning them over to un-prejudiced experts able to prove them authentic or edited via testing it by-passes my prejudices against them. And it by-passes the prejudices of those who feel them authentic now. Authentic, or not authentic they implicate Joseph Smith in condoning others and practicing some earthly polygamy.  (Nov 23, 2008 | post #9885)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Mormons: We are Christians, too

James Whitehead said he saw Bishop Whitney's copy of the July 12th 1843 document at Winter Quarters. He said the later published version he saw in their 1876 D.&C. had been altered to sanction earthly polygamy. Based on this my Community of Christ/RLDS felt the later LDS published version was a forgery. Most felt it only condoned at worst ancient polygamy, eternal marriage, and polygamy only for eternity. Our church President Joseph Smith 3rd felt he could only accept some of the polygamy testimony. He felt there was some fraud in the LDS affidavits implicating his father in polygamy. His own idea after interviewing some of the wives was that they were only sealed to his father for eternity. But that after his death after they married Apostles, ect through misrepresentation turned themselves into earthly wives. For examlpe he mad met Melissa Lott Willis and asked her about her claim of sexuality with his father. She told him the consumnation had occured not in any place his father lived in Nauvoo. Yet in an affidavit in the Temple Lot case had claimed the room number at the Mansion House where Joseph Smith and her spent the night together. If she lied in her affidavit then i would not trust for her perjury her claim of sexuality. LDS leaders had to refute the RLDS belief Joseph Smith Jr. only intended the sexuality in his marriages to start in the afterlife. So in order to contradict Emma Smith's side that her husband only married them for the eternity, but never taught it was was in mortality appropriate to live with them, or have children they had some of the wives falsely claim sexuality. Now as a denomination we have many who reject the traditional view and see him guilty of earthly polygamy also. Eternity only polygamy would involve no marital rights in the flesh, but only starting in the afterlief. Earthly polygamy would move beyond a marriage in name only to include a honey-moon in mortality.  (Nov 23, 2008 | post #9884)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Polygamy and Me

To me either we can whone over sex, or try to get the polygamist saved? Once the person is saved then if God willing he can move the polygamist away from having sex with multiple women. But if God can save the guy and put up with his relations with his wives until death i can support his decision.  (Nov 9, 2008 | post #4)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Polygamy and Me

God accepted some Old Testament polygamists as not beyond salvation. I know of only issues involving David & Solomon. And in the case of David he appears to be saved from the Lake of Fire to the kingdom. Though if i understand the Bible right he will be in Hell until the final judgement which he will pass. Or is your complaint divorced from the Bible and is solely a man-made moral complaint? The real issue is not the sex, but whether God cares about how many wives a man has sex with. Certainly you not liking a polygamists sexual interests in a variety of women is you not God. What is nasty to you might not be always nasty to God. And God can save any polygamist and not make their salvation dependant on moving over to monogamist sex. What do you think?  (Nov 9, 2008 | post #3)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Ok, lets hear it from all the ex-christians here!

To me saying you think Mormons are in a heretical church rather than cult makes more sense. With all the possibly heretical Christian churches around whats wrong with calling them Christian? Such a sharing of the being called Christian hardly means Evangelicals have to agree LDS are in an true orthodox church. With them getting stck in calling Mormonism a cult and non-Christian they end up confusing many Mormons. Mormons not knowing what EV people mean by cult, or non-Christian think all Evangelicals do is name call. To me all it is is glorified name calling fabricated by some corrupt EV apologist to prevent people from dignifying Mormons with the title of Christian. In my experience if i ever went Evangelical i recognize lots of corruption within orthodoxy. To me recognizing an EV minister who has ethics problems as Christian, but Mormons not is wrong. To me if you are going to deny the name Christian via rejection of orthodoxy that ethics, not being saved, ect ought to be included as reasons to deny the title. Since i regard the most unsaved EV Christian i would consider Mormons callable Christian also.  (Nov 7, 2008 | post #5)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

...Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?

I actually was quite surprised by the approaches of the authors of the New Mormon Challenge. The typical Anti-Restoration critics i read i can eventually think through what they write. I am particuarly amused when a critic is stuck in a pat objection without keeping up on answers. So such a critic ends up looking like they research in Anti-Restoration books only, but no time in Restoration apologetics. It was a surprise to me to find thinking critics of Mormonism existed. Now i prefer because of my Community of Christ/RLDS beliefs to use the term Anti-Restoration over Anti-Mormon. Members of Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints get Anti-Restoration activity not just World Church/Utah-based Mormons.  (Nov 7, 2008 | post #36)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Sincership between Yediyd (Beloved Friends)

LDS mean something different when they talk of becoming gods and goddesses. C.S. Lewis believed vast differences existed between creature and creator. LDS believe not in a triune God, but that the Father has a spirit body like mans spirit inside a resurrected body. So the type of deification C.S. Lewis and LDS believe in is different. The LDS idea of deification would be considered by C.S. Lewis accept for true parts here and there heretical.  (Nov 7, 2008 | post #323)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Mormons: We are Christians, too

I learned to do my homework. I read stuff that denies Mormonism is Christian all the time. Reading the best people who usurp the claim to orthodoxy has convinced me Mormons are Christian. I see no justification for not dignifying a group with the title of Christian. Now i can see debating whether they represent true Christianity, or a heretical form of it is an honest debate. But some man-made counter-cult inspired witholding of the title of christian from churches they don't like is just them propping up their false claim to orthodoxy. I have dialogued with many militant Anti-Mormon types and their orthodoxy does not inspire me to trust they have exclusive rights to the name. People can be very Evangelical in doctrine, but no truer a Christian than the Mormons. I learned to test people who feel they are Christian based on orthodoxy lists.  (Nov 2, 2008 | post #9842)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Polygamist child custody case winds down in Texas

I do not hold the tenets Baptist faith untrue just because many Baptist people have flaws. One of their big flaws is their involvement in the counter-cult movement. But Baptists are one group among six hundred million Evangelicals. And with that many human beings you can find many flaws, saints and wicked sinners. I do not charge all Baptists with bigotry, but many can be. Unless an individual Baptist makes themself hated i see no reason to hate that person. I certainly have no more desire to endorse the Baptist faith anymore than the Sadducees and Pharasee groups of Jesus day. The many true Evangelical groups can engage in annoying behavior.  (Nov 2, 2008 | post #33)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Mormons: We are Christians, too

All it meant was becoming like gods meaning God and his angels. The gods satan promised Eve she could become like were not with the exception of God supreme beings. Satan told a part truth as God upheld that part truth in verse 22.  (Oct 16, 2008 | post #9831)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Joseph Smith's marriages to other men's wives

You are correct i think that under the idea that will be the case. My RLDS church rejects the idea of Celestial polygamy, and eternal marriages. To us marriage ends at death. We have an Community of Christ Independence Temple, no marriages are performed in it. We have no sacred ceremonies not shareable with the public. We have no practices like go on in LDS temples.  (Oct 1, 2008 | post #36)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Mormons planning to build temple in Phoenix

i do not get mad at critics for their tactics. Some critics are obnoxious, but some arn't as bad. I hate to blame one critic for tactics of other individuals they have no control over. I hope some of them are saveable from the lake of fire. But i feel an evil spirit with some of them and doubt them saveable. I do not see unsaved people who died with a knowledge of law saveable. Unsaved people in my mind are not saved with a degree of reward in Gods kingdoms. as i see it a critic can be saved from the lake of fire though caught up in counter-cultism. I have met a few critics who message and methods i disagree with that i felt the Holy spirit had not abandoned. If i feel the Holy spirit working with the person i forgive their tactics. Judgement is coming and God will end bad counter-cult practices after the nukes start falling. After peace is established after the suffering of the survivors over maybe years Jesus will come.  (Oct 1, 2008 | post #502)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Mormons: We are Christians, too

I do see the basic Trinity idea as rotted in the Bible. The creeds may be to philopsophically influnenced for me also. I try to keep not so much to the creeds but to the Biblical Trinity. The Jews were mono-theists who could not conceive of God as Gods. In order for Paul to sell the idea to mono-theists he had to say God and Christ were that single God. (1 Cor.8) If he believed something like that latin word persona his idea was creedal. If he believed something unorthodox he merely appropriated one God terminology to cover an hereticalidea that came close to tri-theism. While i am open to the Trinity idea as i say i only feel i can prove some of it Biblical. I see some of the meanings of the creds in the Bible. the creeds do affirm the truth of the strict mono-theism of the Book of Isaiah for example. Rather than work with creeds that are hard to explain i really refer to Evangelical basic statements of belief that use Bible verses. The creeds really are a complicated mess to explain and i prefer to keep to the simple Bible. It is not that an intellectual type could not defend or explain the Trinity creeds in light of the Bible. And any critic of the creeds can complain about how greek influenced they are. But going after the creeds on complicated intellectual complaints is in itself confusing. To me i prefer a more basic discussion of proof-texts used for or against the idea. I think myself one can be stuck in a false sense of security that one has disproven Evangelical beliefs in the creeds without confronting Biblical proof texts for the Trinity. I try and hold to a Keep it Simple Saint (K.I.S.S)method for apologetics and counter-witnessing . I heard the saying from maybe Dick Baer, or Ed Decker once and thought it a good saying to keep in mind. Even though i know counter-cultism is a movement Satan is behind i learn much good stuff from critics i remember.  (Oct 1, 2008 | post #9196)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Quick Questions For Mormons

I realize i spell badly. I wish we could edit our posts. My official church position i support inspite of my personal leanings. I feel how they handle it in our Frequently asked questions is ok. I feel persons should be exposed to the he was guilty position so they can't say the church hid that information from them. As long as a person is informed and leans toward the new or old church position i care more about them having a testimony. To me confidence in other aspects of Joseph Smiths Kirtland prophetic ministry is more important than what members happened in Nauvoo. To me a testimony should be in Jesus not merely in popularly presented church history. So i do not mind myself in members or leaders thinking Joseph Smith sometimes was an infamous man as long as they like some of his history.  (Oct 1, 2008 | post #213)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)

Quick Questions For Mormons

Remember the Reorganization if it circulated a lie about Josephs innocence only continued the policy started by Joseph Smith. In the 1840's Joseph Smith proclaimed his innocence of John C. Bennetts and William Laws charges. I do see room inspite of my doubts about the New Mormon History for different views. I confess Joseph Smith could have been an adulterer. If he was an adulterer like his enemies say he was an sometimes infamous man like one of our historians Rodger D. Launius wrote. (Joseph smith 3rd Pragmatic Prophet pg. 5) Though in context it was about Josephs son who "grew to manhood under the shadow of his famous and sometimes infamous father." I confess imperfections in our older official position. It does not for example deal with some of the documents like William Claytons Nauvoo Journal,ect that only became known to later 20th century Community of Christ historians and church leaders and members. Some like myself are open to platonic exalanation for the sarah ann whitney case documents, or questioning the authenticity of Claytons Nauvoo Journal. Ultimately whether William Clayton doctored up his journal in a 2nd copy i leave up independent document experts to determine. While the journal may be authentic i feel his type in their great zeal to discredit Joseph Smith 3rds continuation of his fathers innocentr policy may have edited documents. With Mark Hoffmann faking documents with Nauvoo dates on them such is not impossible. Scholars were fooled by many experts and both our church leaders alsao.  (Oct 1, 2008 | post #212)