Elder Johann Tetzel
Purveyor of Indulgences
On the eve of All Saint’s Day, October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted the ninety-five theses, which he had composed in Latin, on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg. It was originally entitled “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” but over the years has become known as the “ninety-five theses”. The original title demonstrates that the principle issue inspiring Luther to commit this bold act of conscience was the marketing and sale of indulgences by the catholic church.
On Indulgences
Luther saw the abuse of indulgences as the purchase and sale of salvation – something which he condemned. “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” was a trite marketing phrase circulating at the time which summed up the bottom line about indulgences – people could guarantee for themselves salvation by giving money to the leaders of the Catholic church. Luther saw this as he denounced the idea that the Pope has the right to grant pardons on God’s behalf in the first place. This single act of defiance allowed other people to realize that they could speak out what they know in their heart to be true in defiance of an overwhelming religious authority. The protestant reformation saw its genesis with this idea.
What is it about the sale of Indulgences that is so particularly worthy of condemnation? Is it the presumption of power by an earthly man to be able to grant eternal salvation and remove the penalty of sin? This is something only God may claim. Is it the abuse of authority that a powerful man commits when preying upon the devotion and sincerity of his followers? The power and deference that come with the rank of religious leadership predisposes to such abuses. Is it the greed that is exposed in the hearts of men offering such deception for sale? Sequere pecuniam – Follow the money. Perhaps it is the distortion and manipulation of scripture and God’s ways that must accompany such a deception. All of these things point to the undeniable ecclesiastical abuse of authority and perversion of God that the sale of indulgences represents. Any religious authority claiming such privilege is fraudulent and deplorable.
Snapshot of LDS history – Helen Mar Kimball
Helen Mar Kimball
On 30 March 1881, Helen Mar Whitney (Kimball) wrote a frank autobiographical letter to her children relating her parents’ conversion to Mormonism and also her own baptism. (The letter resides in the LDS Church History Archives, but a transcription of the letter is available on an official LDS website here) Those familiar with the life of Joseph Smith Jr., founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, may know that Helen Mar was the daughter of early church apostle Heber C. Kimball and was a polygamist wife of Joseph Smith prior to his death in 1844.
In her letter to her children she also recounted the struggle and conflict that she and her mother confronted when Joseph Smith asked Helen Mar to marry him as a plural wife. The events described offer a rare insight into how Joseph Smith was able to persuade girls (and their parents) to be a part of a practice which they would otherwise be averse to. She begins her account of the request by relating how it was her father Heber C. Kimball who first introduced the principal of plural marriage to her:
“… he taught me the principle of Celestial marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter”
She goes on to describe the anguish of her mother who had already had to bear the indignity of accepting a second wife (Sarah Noon) to her father Heber:
“how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more”
She relates that she struggled with the request by her father that she be given to Joseph Smith for the next 24 hours – when Joseph himself came to their home and taught and explained the principle of celestial marriage to her and her parents. She then relates what the Prophet told her would be the result of her giving herself to him in this manner:
he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”
Joseph Smith had already obtained the consent of her father and he needed only to finalize the transaction by persuading Helen Mar herself. Being sincere in her belief and showing remarkable willingness to sacrifice herself on behalf of her family for the hope of salvation and exaltation – she consented:
“This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.”
Keep in mind that Helen was born August 20, 1828 and this conversation took place in May 1843 – making Helen Mar 14 years, 9 months old at the time of the request. If you have a 14 year old daughter – imagine what she would say to such a request. She had been taught since the age of 3 years old to revere Joseph as a Prophet of God who had all the authority and privilege to act in His name on the Earth. The foundational motivation for the entire religious existence of her and her family was to obtain salvation and exaltation and this revered Prophet was telling her that if she would consent to be his wife, she would purchase that security for herself and her entire family and kindred.
Restored Indulgences
If the details of this exchange are starting to sound familiar, there is a reason. What Helen relates is no less than a man claiming authority of God and offering eternal salvation at a price. If the practice of such a falsehood was evil in the hands of Catholic clergy in the 1500’s when the exchange was bartered in money, how much more deplorable is it when the clergy asks for young girls in exchange for the promise of eternal splendor? If the Catholic sale of indulgences based on money revealed the greed within the hearts of clerics – what does the sale of salvation based on young girls expose in the heart of Joseph Smith?
Conclusion
Religious authority claimed by any man sets the stage for the abuse of the faithful and sincere. When men say that God has granted them special status between the common people and their sovereign Lord the inevitable result is predation. Those mystic men who claim such privilege will quickly work to turn the devotion of their prey from God to themselves. Once they have intermingled themselves with God in the minds of their devotees, they are primed to commit all manner of abuse couched in piety and godliness. The victims of this deception become unable to distinguish between devotion to God and devotion to these men – because their lies create a false connection between the two.
Just as Luther was able to expose a chink in the armor of the Catholic Church allowing people to break free from the ecclesiastical chains they were bound under, there are more and more Mormons becoming aware of the deceptions that saturate that foundation of the LDS religion. While the ability to see the deception for what it is has become difficult due to the ceaseless efforts of the church to clean up it’s image and rhetoric, the internet has made more information widely available and is becoming the liberating force in the modern age that the Printing Press and Gutenberg Bible was centuries ago.
Post-Script
In anticipation of the common argument that many of Josephs sealings and marriages were ceremonial only and did not involve sexual consummation, the church has made a statement regarding this question. In the introduction to Volume 2 of the Joseph Smith Nauvoo Journals published on the official LDS Joseph Smith Papers Website it states the following:
“William Clayton provides the best contemporaneous evidence that at least some plural marriages in Nauvoo during Joseph Smith’s lifetime involved conjugal relations—just as they did later in Utah—and nothing in the 12 July 1843 revelation on plural marriage provides any doctrinal reason for why any authorized plural marriage could not have included such relations.” (JosephSmithPapers.org)
While there is not positive proof that each marriage involved sex, the church is stating that it wouldn’t matter if there was sex involved because it is clearly permitted.
Post-Post-Script
Helen Mar included a poem she had written to express her feelings about her union to Joseph Smith and it’s effect on her life. It is heart breaking.
I thought through this life my time will be my own
The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone,
No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,
And as the past hath been the future still will be.
To my guileless heart all free from worldly care
And full of blissful hopes—and youthful visions rare
The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept
From sight, and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.
They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.
And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise,
Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreems all o’er thou’rt doom’d alas to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;
But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown,
Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn, [p. 2]
Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw
A glory in obeying this high celestial law,
For to thousands who’ve died without the light
I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright.
I’d been taught to receive the Prophet of God
And receive every word as the word of the Lord.
But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth,
I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.
Addendum
Some have pointed out that according to Catholicism indulgences are simply the removal of the temporal penalty for sin, the guilt of which has already been forgiven. They point to Pope Paul VI who offered an apostolic constitution on indulgences, saying: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1).
This is a good explanation and clarifies the issue of indulgences as they are portrayed in the 20th century. The issue, however is not how indulgences are portrayed today, but how they were being portrayed and abused at the time that Martin Luther spoke out. I have previously discussed how an organization will clean up its image when necessary to survive. The fact of the matter is that the sale of indulgences was abused and the marketing, even if misguided, extended to the promise that the “damned would be released from hell” (catholicculture.org). Many non-catholics would argue that the concept of indulgences, even in it’s 20th century form, is still an overreach of power. I agree.
References
1. “Helen Mar Kimball Whitney 1881 Autobiography” byu.edu
In addition, Jacob 2:30 states that the only reason the Lord might command polygamy would be to raise up seed (sex).
So it only follows doctrinally that Joseph would have had relations with Helen.
The official revelation on polygamy in D&C also corroborates this.
D&C 132:63 says: “…for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men…”
A nearly 15 year old girl getting married was no more big a deal back then as a 20 year old girl today. A little on the young side but certainly no scandal. Likewise for older men marrying much younger women. The founder of the Boy Scouts and author of Paradise Lost both did that.
As for calling it an indulgence, that is totally unjustified. Polygamy was no sin, she was not purchasing forgiveness for anything. You fail to make the distinction between being blessed for obedience and compensating financially for disobedience. She was promised blessing for obedience, as we all are. We are promised certain blessings for paying tithing, living the Word of Wisdom and keeping out temple vows. None of that is the same as an indulgence. But if you are out to find a way to attack the Prophet by implying he was corrupt and motivated by lust, why let the truth of such a distinction get in the way?
You make a good point about the distinction between being blessed for obedience and compensating financially for disobedience.
If what Joseph was telling her was the same sort of salvation and exaltation that anyone may enjoy by obedience to God’s Commandments – why would he need to bring it up as a persuasive statement in support of his marriage proposal? If he was simply pointing out that obedience to God’s counsel guarantees such eternal blessings – then he must have intimated that it was God’s command that she give herself to him as a plural wife.
It was clearly against her disposition to enter into that marriage. Read the poem she included in the letter – she admits frankly that she did not have the capacity to understand exactly what she was agreeing to and mourned her lost childhood thereafter. For a man professing to be a prophet of God to bring his religious authority to bear and abuse his position by imposing upon a girl so young is utterly contemptible.
The issue is not so much that she was 14 years old. The issue is that he used coercive and deceptive manipulation by using his self-proclaimed religious authority to overwhelm the innocence and sensibility of a young, impressionable and sincere girl.
In the military there are restrictions against superior officers entering into relationships with people of lesser rank. This is because that imbalance of power lends itself to abuse where the senior officer may compel or coerce the junior party through threats or promises.
While Joseph’s proposal was stated in the form of a promise – the understood implication is that if she did not agree to the arrangement – the salvation and exaltation of herself and her family would not have the same guarantee. This is undeniable ecclesiastical abuse!
Today if a bishop, a stake president or Thomas S Monson himself were to make such a proposal to even a woman of normal marriage age (much less a minor), while in the office of their religious authority it would be considered highly unethical and abusive.
Many people are quick to point out that the biggest problem with indulgences was that the rich were so apt to use their wealth to purchase absolution in a manner that resulted in a permissiveness towards sin. This is backwards reasoning, however, because if the clergy did not permit and promote the ability to make such a transaction in the first place, then the wealthy would not have indulged in it.
You accuse me of simply finding any reason to attack the prophet. I acknowledge that there are many uplifting and faith inspiring stories about Joseph Smith. I don’t focus on these because they do nothing to reveal his true nature. Great and not-so great men and women will have such good stories told about them at some point in their lives. Just as a counterfeit coin has a majority appearance of the genuine article – it is in the subtle and hidden defect that the fraud is revealed. It is issues like this story of his proposal to Helen Mar Kimball which reveal the true nature of Joseph Smith.
To anyone who is not already pre-disposed to grant Joseph the benefit of the doubt, accounts such as this reveal an obvious religious con-man. Imagine if I were to change the names in this story and the religious leader was L Ron Hubbard and the 14 year old victim was a daughter of one of L Rons Hubbard’s inner circle – you would easily declare this to be the result of a pernicious and evil man preying upon the devotion of his followers. Why do you have such a blind spot for the same events in your own religious back yard?
Almost any talk about obedience to anything also talks about the blessings that come from obeying. Human nature makes it so people look for assurance that any sacrifices they make or effort they put forward will be worth it. She was not being told that she had to do this to cover over some sin, or that if she did it she would have earned enough brownie points that she could safely commit some sins. She was not threatened that if she didn’t she would be cast off or suffer any other punishment, and she made her own choice. You ignore the fact that other women turned Joseph down and suffered no punishment for it, and they did so fully believing that Joseph truly was a prophet of God. It was purely a blessings for obedience matter and you are trying to pound a round peg into a square hole to fit an agenda. And you do it by assuming motives and state of mind and other things you have no support for other than your personal bias. I will leave you to enjoy your view from the great and spacious building, while it lasts.
Joseph Smith threatened Sarah Pratt: “Sometime in late 1840 or early 1841, Joseph Smith confided to his friend that he was smitten by the “amiable and accomplished” Sarah Pratt and wanted her for “one of his spiritual wives, for the Lord had given her to him as a special favor for his faithfulness” (emphasis in original). Shortly afterward, the two men took some of Bennett’s sewing to Sarah’s house. During the visit, as Bennett describes it, Joseph said, “Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as God granted holy men of old, and as I have long looked upon you with favor, and an earnest desire of connubial bliss, I hope you will not repulse or deny me.” “And is that the great secret that I am not to utter,” Sarah replied. “Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant, and prove recreant to my lawful husband! I never will.” She added, “I care not for the blessings of Jacob. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me.” But according to Bennett, the Prophet was persistent. Finally Sarah angrily told him on a subsequent visit, “Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will make a full disclosure to Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it.” “Sister Pratt,” the Prophet responded, “I hope you will not expose me, for if I suffer, all must suffer; so do not expose me. Will you promise me that you will not do it?” “If you will never insult me again,” Sarah replied, “I will not expose you unless strong circumstances should require it.” “If you should tell,” the Prophet added, “I will ruin your reputation, remember that.”
(Article “Sarah M. Pratt” by Richard A. Van Wagoner, Dialogue, Vol.19, No.2, p.72.
William Law’s wife refused, and that didn’t end well: “William Law, a former counselor in the First Presidency, wrote in his 13 May 1844 diary: “[Joseph] ha[s] lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and ha[s] found her a virtuous woman” The Laws elaborated on this in a public meeting shortly thereafter. “The Prophet had made dishonorable proposals to [my] wife . . . under cover of his asserted ‘Revelation,’ ” Law stated. He further explained that Joseph came to the Law home in the middle of the night when William was absent and told Jane that “the Lord had commanded that he should take spiritual wives, to add to his glory.” Law then called on his wife to corroborate what he had said. She did so and further explained that Joseph had “asked her to give him half her love; she was at liberty to keep the other half for her husband” Jane refused the Prophet, and according to William Law’s 20 January 1887 letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, Smith then considered the couple apostates. “Jane had been speaking evil of him for a long time . . . slandered him, and lied about him without cause,” Law reported Smith as saying. “My wife would not speak evil of . . . anyone . . . without cause,” Law asserted. “Joseph is the liar and not she. That Smith admired and lusted after many men’s wives and daughters, is a fact, but they could not help that. They or most of them considered his admiration an insult, and treated him with scorn. In return for this scorn, he generally managed to blacken their reputations–see the case of . . . Mrs. Pratt, a good, virtuous woman.”
(“Mormon Polygamy” by Richard S. Van Wagoner, page 44)
Sarah Kimball refused Joseph’s advances: Sarah M. Kimball, a prominent Nauvoo and Salt Lake City Relief Society leader was also approached by the Prophet in early 1842 despite her solid 1840 marriage to Hiram Kimball. Sarah later recalled that
“Joseph Smith taught me the principle of marriage for eternity, and the doctrine of plural marriage. He said that in teaching this he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with blessings, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach with commandment, as the Church could travel [progress] no further without the introduction of this principle.” (“LDS Biographical Encyclopedia” By Elder Andrew Jensen, 6:232, 1887)
Sarah Kimball, like Sarah Pratt, was committed to her husband, and refused the Prophet’s invitation, asking that he “teach it to someone else.” Although she kept the matter quiet, her husband and Smith evidently had difficulties over Smith’s proposal. On 19 May 1842, at a Nauvoo City Council meeting, Smith jotted down and then “threw across the room” a revelation to Kimball which declared that “Hiram Kimball has been insinuating evil, and formulating evil opinions” against the Prophet, which if he does not desist from, he “shall be accursed.” Sarah remained a lifetime member of the Church and a lifelong wife to Hiram Kimball.
– “LDS Biographical Encyclopedia” By Elder Andrew Jensen, 6:232, 1887, Official History of the Church 5: 12-13,
Essentially if Joseph proposed to a woman and she accepted he would then sometimes consummate the proposal with marriage, and sometimes he would decline the proposal he previously made. Of course, when Joseph was calling the shots nothing derogatory happened towards these women (or their existing husbands). However, when women scorned Joseph’s advances they did face the possibility of a very angry “prophet”.
You’re right, historically there is nothing remarkable about marriage at such an age. There’s also nothing historically remarkable about extorted marriage, at any age. It’s a long tradition, which Joseph appears to have perpetuated.
As for calling it an indulgence, I believe the comparison is spot on. “Polygamy was no sin,” and neither was the exchange of money. The indulgence-mongers claimed to be promising blessings for obedience, too. Fund the work of God, and He will bless you! (Incidentally, does that sound familiar?) Furthermore, all biologically sexual creatures, ever, have been motivated by lust; some are just more honest about it than others.
The real question is whether or not Joseph was speaking the will of God, or his own will. The timing of this particular narrative makes a divine claim specious. The same timing, not coincidentally, occurred with poor Emma. If Joseph’s praises of her are believed, her rejection of his sexual justifications shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Turns out the marrying age actually wasn’t younger then it is now. And when teens married they married other teens, not people twice their age. It was not normal for a 35-year-old to marry a teenager at all.
Faith is a delicate thing. Those who proclaim God and profess to be his oracle should, it seems, demonstrate their convictions by their sacrifices. Sacrifice by definition is to suffer for or deprive oneself and refrain from what by all appearances would normally be defined as sin and indulgence.
I’m getting sick just thinking about Smith’s bunch of wives. I guess the church forget to mention this part in Sunday School.
Hello Brother,
Let me cast a few words down here. Reading this stuff, for me at least, is not uplifting. It doesn’t …what’s the word? Bolster, strengthen or sustain…something like that. I am constantly thinking to myself, where is your heart?
Ultimately, all this page boils down to is you have unresolved concerns regarding the historical account presented about Joseph Smith.
Well, that’s all well and good, and I don’t think anyone would fault you for asking questions about things you want answers to, but Joseph is dead, the people whom you think he wronged are also dead. So whatever consequence he may or may not enjoy because of what he did are now in god’s hands.
We could go back and forth about was he a deceiver, is the church a clever counterfeit and are they white washing their image etc. ad nauseam but the real question you should be asking yourself is what does it all mean for “me” by which I mean you. Think about it. You don’t have a silver bullet or a smoking gun, all you have is a handful of questions and no answers that will 1. Bring joy. 2. Strengthen your brethren. 3.Help you get closer to your heavenly father.
You’re just punching a hole in the sheetrock and leaving the mess for someone else to deal with. Christ wouldn’t want you to burn your time darkening the bright hope of those around you in dark corners of the internet pushing peoples noses into the sordid matters of the past. That precious time, that god has mercifully granted you, you should be pouring on those you love that they may remember the good works you performed on their behalf.
I feel that I should remind you of two things. First, we revere our dead, they are our ancestors and we choose to remember what they did great in their lives and how we are ever changed by the sacrifices they made and the good things they did. Second, while we believe our church is run by Christ, it is ministered by us and while we seek to be perfect even as our heavenly father is perfect, we often stumble. Because of that same hope that we have in Christ, we get up when we fall and so long as we seek repentance, our brother will always have his arm stretched out to bear us up.
Yes, they (our ancestors) did things we question and I hope we learn from. I think any grandfather would be honored if their progeny learned from their mistakes or imperfections to become better people than they were. But I think even you will admit they did a lot of good and they did endure many things that are very hard to bear, I dare say harder than many in America have had to bear for a very long time.
I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again, the most important thing you or anyone can do is read the scriptures. Learn the doctrine and become a disciple of Christ by following his example. Judgment is the Lord’s but for us, I don’t know what you want to call it, our responsibility, our duty, our role, etc. is to forgive, especially so that we can obtain that same forgiveness for ourselves.
Spence,
Thanks for the comments – I am always glad to see you guys at least acknowledging my perspective – even if you do not share it. You make some good points that will respond to below:
Seeking after truth.
No, I started with unresolved questions. It was difficult to have this idea of him as a divinely called prophet and see things like this Helen Mar Kimball affair done under that mantle. I couldn’t reconcile it. As soon as I allowed the possibility that Joseph was not a prophet, but a con man with a penchant for young girls – it all made perfect sense and my unresolved questions became completely resolved.
If the historical account of Sun Young Moon, founder of the Moonies, revealed him to be a fraud – would you criticize those followers of his who use that evidence to point it out to others who have been shielded from the truth? what about the followers of L Ron Hubbard? David Koresh? If the actions of Joseph Smith reveal him to be a deceiving fraud – it is extremely important for people living under that deception to know it – even if that deception has extended beyond the lifetime of Joseph himself. This Helen Mar Kimball experience is one of the most blatant and unabashed examples of Joseph’s manipulation of the power and deference that was given him due to his fraudulent claims of divine authority.
Racism in the Church, plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, lies about polygamy/polyandry/pedophilia, changes to revelations – all of these are smoking guns and silver bullets. People following these systems of belief and controlling religions do not see them for what they are. Remember the guy who was scribing for Warren Jeffs wouldn’t believe it when Jeffs himself declared that he was a fraud.
Bringing joy is not the ultimate goal – truth is. People who are in controlling cults undergo a great deal of turmoil, difficulty and pain when they are deprogrammed. Finally discovering truth does ultimately bring them greater joy – but there is a whole lot of pain on the journey. Anyone who is raised under a totalistic worldview will experience pain, discomfort and anxiety if they start to learn facts which reveal their worldview to be without a foundation of truth. Christ himself acknowledged that learning his truth would not bring peace in this world (Luke 12:51,52) – “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three…”
Strengthen the brethren – It absolutely strengthens the individual members of any controlling organization based on fraud if they are made aware of that fraud and set free to pursue truth. Would you begrudge people escaping the communists, Nazis, scientologists and telling their family and friends about those deceptions because it doesn’t “strengthen their brethren?”
David Koresh was, by all accounts, a false prophet. By definition he was leading people away from God – ultimately to a fiery death. If one of his followers had discovered him to be a fraud and tried to show those facts to his other followers – they would criticize him as trying to lead people away from heavenly father. Leading people away from deceivers gives them a chance to approach God without the distorted lies of conspiring men getting in the way. Christ warned that there would be false prophets (Matthew 24:3-8). Joseph Smith’s actions and his doctrine reveal him to be one of these. Exposing him for what he was serves to bring people out of that pathway of deception freeing them to pursue truth free from Joseph Smith’s controlling deceit – just as exposing David Koresh would have done.
Christ upturned the revered religion that was the bright hope of those around him at the time. He contested boldly and fiercely with the religious leaders of the day. He called them vipers, children of hell, hypocrites – and he decried their pious and hypocritical adherence to the laws of their traditions (matthew 23). I am not Christ, but his example was not of simply blindly following whatever tradition you are born into. People who have had family members get ensnared by leaders like David Korsesh, Sun Young Moon and L Ron Hubbard consider it an act of love and compassion to try to show the deception of those men to their loved ones. It is no different for people who get themselves out of those systems and try to help others see that the emperor has no clothes. As I mentioned above – it is never recieved as an act of love by the people under those systems, until and unless they come to see the deception for what it is. People who are taken out of the Moonies become very grateful for the love shown to them by those people who they at first hated for telling them about the lies and deception of Moon.
While reverence for the dead may be an honorable thing – it does not trump truth. If the particular dead person set up a system based on lies and deception in order to get power and that system is still in place – the death of the leader is not an excuse to close your eyes to the deception. L. Ron Hubbard is dead. Should scientologists never critically evaluate his actions because he is dead? Hubbard, Smith, Koresh, Hitler, Mao – all these people did good things and made sacrifices in their life, but that is not an excuse to ignore the things that they did which reveal the fraudulent controlling systems that they established.
Simple imperfections by church leaders are not the issue – the issue is actions and statements made by church leaders acting under their divinely claimed authority. We don’t care if Parley P Pratt had a mistress on the side, because that is just a mistake that anyone may make. We DO care if Joseph Smith used his authority as prophet to coerce a family to surrender a young girl into a marriage in the most unethical fashion because that same authority was used to do everything else that he claimed divine guidance on.
Reading the scriptures that existed at the time Joseph Smith was espousing his restored gospel leads me to the conclusion that he was one of those false prophets that Christ warned of. The historical narratives of Joseph Smith’s actions support that conclusion. The actions of the church and it’s leaders since that time provide further conclusive evidence.
People trapped in systems like the Moonies and Scientology should not turn off their critical minds just because “judgement is the Lord’s” – the same is true for mormons. We can still forgive people and seek after truth – even if it reveals a religious system to be based upon deception. I can forgive Joseph Smith for his deception and all those who fell for it and perpetuated it until now. This does not mean that I must close my mind to the fact of the deception and continue to live under it.
Love
Jon
I just wanted to add to your reply to Brother Spence, Matt. 7:15-20.
Since I wasn’t a contemporary of Smith, the study of his history is all I have to judge his fruits by. After 35 years of faithful service and tithing, an honest study reveals to me bad fruit and a ravening wolf.
I would recommend reading ‘the rest of the story’ with regard to Helen Kimball. It makes all the difference and casts light instead of darkness as to her life experiences and those she had with the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. To only quote from one instance, a poem, and not the whole is disingenuous. She had no regrets and would have done it all again. I highly recommend including the rest of the story at: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one