Joseph Smith knew Paul

Posted in Religionon Aug 15, 2006

Joseph Smith read from James. It is likely that Joseph Smith did not just open to James, but read the Pauline episodes first. Joseph Smith would have been reading over the doctrines of the old church while visiting and investigating the churches in his area at his time.

I believe that Joseph Smith had a personal and deep relationship with Paul. Their lives are parallel. Converted through seeing the Lord, chosen to be a great church leader in building the Church, persecuted, imprisoned, and martyred. It is interesting how the only physical description of Paul comes from Joseph Smith.

9 Comments

David

November 29th, 1999 at 5:00 pm

There are some that not only claim that Paul wasn’t even an apostle, but that he was also a priestcraft/false prophet.

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

I would be curious to read any/all statements of Joseph Smith concerning Paul.

I have always wondered why Paul calls himself an apostle when Peter, James, and John called Matthias to replace Judas.

Jacob

February 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

“Description of Paul:–He is about five feet high; very dark hair; dark complexion; dark skin; large Roman nose; sharp face; small black eyes, penetrating as eternity; round shoulders; a whining voice, except when elevated, and then it almost resembled the roaring of a lion. He was a good orator, active and diligent, always employing himself in doing good to his fellowmanâ€? (B. H. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, p.86).

jim

November 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

i’m pretty sure paul faked his vision on the road to damascus. neither peter, james, nor john mention him in their epistles. paul mentions them, and the author of acts (between 75-110 a.d) also mentions a possible meeting, but this is all apologetics after the fact. if you accept the keys of presidency residing in peter, james, and john, then paul’s story sounds strange.

Jacob

November 11th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Jim. What an interesting comment. I’m not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say. You talk like you know the bible pretty well, but what you are saying makes it seem like you don’t trust the bible to be true, which is an odd position for someone who seems to know it.

Bennett

November 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Interesting comment Jacob. Actually, the better a person knows the Bible, the more likely they are to NOT “trust the Bible to be true.” You have to fill your head with a lot of speculation and contradiction to actually trust it to be true.

Seriously. Are we talking about the same book? The one in which each of the four Gospels reports DIFFERENT text for the sign above Jesus on the cross? (well, three report, and one mentions nothing about any sign). The same book that explicitly states that God is not a man, and therefore cannot and does not reprent, and at the same time says that “God repented” of evil he had done several times? The same book that states that day and night weren’t created until the THIRD day? (How can you create something on something that doesn’t yet exist?) Or how about we go back to Paul.

The author of Hebrews speaks several times of his/her conversion by the teachings of others, and never of any miraculous vision. Paul didn’t even write Hebrews, though we’re not sure who did.

Simply put, the MORE you learn about the Bible, the more you learn you can’t trust it further than you can throw it. The Bible, especially the bits in the first half, are all about a God that kills people for not believing in him. Fortunately Jesus tried to set that straight. Matthew 5-7 is what makes reading the Bible worthwhile. Reading anything outside that takes a lot of interpretation, careful study, and understanding that just because some old guy wrote something in his journal, doesn’t arbitrarily make it true.

The Bible is simply an excellent collection of the writings of people struggling in their relationship with God. We can learn much from their experience and insight. However, their insight is FAR from infallible, just like yours or mine.

Paul

May 17th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

Actually the fact that the 4 gospels are varied in their descriptions of various events and details gives it validity as it indicates unrehearsed responses. It also indicates no collaboration between the different parties. Anyone who studies law knows that the eye witness accounts SELDOM if ever are close to the actually events and are very varied. It doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen. It means we are human with our own unique perspective. Again, 4 different accounts does not prove the Bible false but lends credence.

Becky

February 17th, 2010 at 8:43 pm

Thanks for your insight regarding parallels between Joseph Smith and Paul. I had not noticed this, but as I am currently re-studying the NT your comment is enlightening.

Karl

August 1st, 2010 at 11:53 am

I read a book but can’t remember the name saying that Paul visited Joseph on a number of occasions and taught Joseph numerous things…can someone please verify that for me…thanks

Nathan000000

August 13th, 2013 at 10:34 pm

Jim, Peter mentions Paul in 2 Pet. 3:15–16.

David, the idea that Paul might have been an apostle is based in part on the assumption that as each apostle died, another person was called to replace him (at least, for the first few decades, until the great apostasy was in full swing). For example, the apostle James (brother of the apostle John) was killed by Herod in Acts 12:2.

Comment Form

Categories