Discussion Questions

Joseph Smith’s “first vision” account portrays God as calling mainstream Christian creeds “an abomination” and their professors “corrupt”; what picture of God’s holiness, patience, and willingness to judge the visible church is being asserted here, and what would have to be true for that kind of sweeping indictment to be justified? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Joseph Smith said God called the main Christian churches “an abomination” and their leaders “corrupt.” What kind of God is this describing, and what would need to be true for God to fairly condemn the whole visible church like that?

The teacher notes that LDS Scripture includes the Bible “as far as it has been translated correctly,” plus additional “standard works,” plus ongoing revelations from living prophets; how does that approach to authority and continuing revelation compare with the assumptions of the early Christians about apostolic teaching, Scripture, and the boundaries of “the faith once delivered”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: LDS authority includes the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly,” other LDS books, and new messages from living prophets. How is that different from how early Christians viewed apostolic teaching, Scripture, and “the faith once delivered”?

The transcript emphasizes Joseph Smith’s family involvement in treasure hunting, seer stones, magic circles, daggers, and even animal sacrifice, and then connects elements of Moroni’s visit to an “occult worldview” and possible “necromancy”; how should Christians evaluate “spiritual experiences” that arise from practices the Bible associates with forbidden power, and what does that imply about discernment in modern Christian culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If someone’s spiritual experiences come from practices the Bible warns against (like magic or trying to contact spirits), how should Christians judge those experiences? What does that mean for how we practice discernment today?

Joseph’s friend reports Joseph “wept and acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor never could, and that his former pretensions…were all false,” yet Joseph later continues using the seer stone to “translate” the Book of Mormon; what does this do to the credibility of Joseph’s later prophetic claims, and how should repentance, confession, and patterns of deception factor into evaluating someone who claims to speak for God? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Joseph was reported to admit he could not use a seer stone and that his earlier claims were false, yet later he used a seer stone to “translate” the Book of Mormon. How should that affect how we trust his later claims to speak for God, and how should repentance and repeated deception factor in?

The teacher highlights Joseph’s explanation of translation to Oliver Cowdery—“study it out in your mind…burning in the bosom…stupor of thought”—and then calls it “absolute nonsense” in light of real language translation; how does this method redefine revelation, and where do you see similar “inner feeling equals truth” approaches operating in evangelical decision-making, Bible interpretation, or claims of God’s guidance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Joseph described revelation as “study it out,” then a “burning in the bosom” or a “stupor of thought.” How does that turn revelation into “inner feelings equal truth,” and where do you see that same idea in evangelical choices, Bible reading, or “God told me” claims?

The Kirtland period description includes trances, people rolling on frozen ground, unknown tongues, “parchments hanging in the night sky,” and Joseph diagnosing an elder as under “diabolical influence” while attempted healings fail and a corpse is not raised; what standard for true miracles and true spiritual power is implied by the teacher’s narration, and how does this challenge contemporary Christian tolerance for “manifestations” that produce confusion, spectacle, or unverifiable claims? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Kirtland events include trances, strange behavior, dramatic signs, and failed healings. What standard for real miracles and real spiritual power is the teacher assuming, and how should this challenge Christians who accept confusing or unprovable “manifestations”?

Joseph’s Missouri “Zion” prophecies include a specific promise that a temple would be built “in this generation” on the temple lot, yet the teacher points out it “was never built”; how should serious Christians handle specific failed prophecy claims, and how does this compare with the way early Christians treated false prophets versus how modern Christians often excuse leaders who were “mostly right” or “well-intentioned”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Joseph promised a temple would be built “in this generation,” but it was never built. How should Christians respond to clear failed prophecies, and how does that compare with how early Christians treated false prophets versus how people excuse leaders today?

The transcript recounts revelations that shift direction at key moments—first “redemption of Zion…by power,” then a nighttime reversal telling them to “wait…for a little season” and return to Kirtland for an “endowment”; how does this pattern raise questions about using “God told me” language to manage setbacks, and what safeguards should the church have so that “revelation” can’t become a tool for preserving a leader’s authority? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Some revelations changed direction when plans failed, like “go redeem Zion” and then “wait and go back.” How does this raise concerns about using “God told me” to explain setbacks, and what church safeguards can stop “revelation” from protecting a leader’s power?

Joseph’s rhetoric in Missouri—“we will establish our religion by the sword…one gore of blood…Joseph Smith or the sword”—is contrasted with his later surrender; what does this episode reveal about the spirit and methods being promoted, and how does it confront modern Christian instincts to baptize political power, coercion, or militant speech as “defending the faith”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Joseph used violent talk like “religion by the sword,” but later surrendered. What does this show about the spirit and methods being pushed, and how should it challenge Christians who treat political force or militant speech as “defending the faith”?

In Nauvoo, the teacher quotes Joseph’s 1843 revelation tying salvation to “a new and an everlasting covenant” of eternal/plural marriage (“if ye abide not…then are ye damned”) while Joseph publicly denied polygamy and secretly married over 30 women, including some already married; what does this combination of secret practice, coercive spiritual threats, and doctrinal innovation suggest about the character of “revelation,” and how should it challenge evangelical assumptions that grace eliminates the need to test leaders by holiness, truthfulness, and public accountability? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Joseph taught that salvation depended on eternal/plural marriage, denied polygamy in public, and secretly married many women, including some already married. What does this mix of secrecy, threats, and new doctrine suggest about his “revelation,” and how should it push evangelicals to test leaders by holiness, honesty, and public accountability?