Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy? [Archive] - Page 2

Father_JD

02-18-2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Thanks for contradicting yourself:

Faith is required.
Works are required.

Therefore, Mormon soteriology is: Faith + WORKS. It's almost amusing to see Mos completely contradict themselves in just one paragraph.

I have NOT contradicted myself. And why do you keep ignoring "faith without works is "? It seems to be so offensive to you, you couldn't even include the word % " when you copied part of my response.

I didn't ignore "works", I stressed to you that works are the OUTWORKING OF ONE'S FAITH. If only you understood James' meaning here: A REAL salvivic faith will be evidenced by works. The works are PROOF that one has TRUE FAITH. A REAL Faith will ALWAYS be accompanied by works...but the works in and of themselves DO NOT SAVE OR JUSTIFY ONE IN THE FORENSIC SENSE WITH GOD.

You have also chosen to ignore the meaning of my words "it takes some effort on your part to determine where you are going to go in the heavens prepared for us". I did not say you are not saved. They DO indicate YOU have some responsibility - it is not a free ride.

You just said now that salvation "is NOT A FREE RIDE". Therefore FAITH in and of itself is INSUFFICIENT and WORKS are a justifying component in Mormon soteriology. All you do is contradict yourself, but the pathetic thing of it all is that you're BLIND to your own self-contradictions! :eek:

I have to say, this is a very weak argument against the LDS Church. Every single time I point out that the Bible teaches "faith without works is ", it is ignored as if it did not exist.

LOL. You think because you state something as "such" it must be so. Yes, sbt...FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS . A REAL FAITH WILL BE EVIDENCED BY WORKS BUT THE WORKS DO NOT JUSTIFY ONE OR ADD TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS. Ya can't say I've ignored this. I've explained it several times to you now...:rolleyes:

Quote:
You just AFFIRMED "faith plus works" as somehow misrepresnting your beliefs, but then AFFIRMED that WORKS ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION thereby contradicting yourself.

Works are an outworking of that FAITH THAT SAVES.

Why do you refuse to see what I wrote? I affirmed no such thing. You actually have the chance, in this life, to either produce works or not. It is works that help determine where in heaven you will end up. It is NOT works that save. If you want to spend eternity in a lower level of heaven that is up to you. You certainly will not be able to pretend you didn't know, however, that faith goes hand-in-hand in determining where you wind up.

First of all, there's ONLY ONE HEAVEN...and not the multi-tiered imaginary Mormon heaven where even UNREPENTANT SINNERS GO. Suffice it to say, that NOW you're equivocating your argument to that of "rewards".

SavedbyTruth

02-18-2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Thanks for contradicting yourself:

Faith is required.
Works are required.

Therefore, Mormon soteriology is: Faith + WORKS. It's almost amusing to see Mos completely contradict themselves in just one paragraph.

I didn't ignore "works", I stressed to you that works are the OUTWORKING OF ONE'S FAITH. If only you understood James' meaning here: A REAL salvivic faith will be evidenced by works. The works are PROOF that one has TRUE FAITH. A REAL Faith will ALWAYS be accompanied by works...but the works in and of themselves DO NOT SAVE OR JUSTIFY ONE IN THE FORENSIC SENSE WITH GOD.

You just said now that salvation "is NOT A FREE RIDE". Therefore FAITH in and of itself is INSUFFICIENT and WORKS are a justifying component in Mormon soteriology. All you do is contradict yourself, but the pathetic thing of it all is that you're BLIND to your own self-contradictions! :eek:

LOL. You think because you state something as "such" it must be so. Yes, sbt...FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS . A REAL FAITH WILL BE EVIDENCED BY WORKS BUT THE WORKS DO NOT JUSTIFY ONE OR ADD TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS. Ya can't say I've ignored this. I've explained it several times to you now...:rolleyes:

Quote:
You just AFFIRMED "faith plus works" as somehow misrepresnting your beliefs, but then AFFIRMED that WORKS ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION thereby contradicting yourself.

Works are an outworking of that FAITH THAT SAVES.

First of all, there's ONLY ONE HEAVEN...and not the multi-tiered imaginary Mormon heaven where even UNREPENTANT SINNERS GO. Suffice it to say, that NOW you're equivocating your argument to that of "rewards".

There IS more than one level in Heaven. Read Revelations. Read the Book of Enoch (I'm sure you can find a copy to read). Those are two sources written before Christ restored His Church.

Works help determine WHERE you are going to wind up in Heaven. Works do not save you. What do you not understand here???

You have made an interesting interpretation of the Bible. To me, being truly "converted" is what drives the desire to do good works. Continuing to keep the commandments is a reflection of being truly converted, and results in good works by the very nature of keeping many of the commandments. There are many people who love their neighbors and their enemies and serve them who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their works will get them farther once they learn about Christ and have faith in Him as their Savior, then John Q. Citizen (JQC) who has had faith in Christ all of his life but is too distracted by the world to do things for others. At the end of their life, they both have faith which saves them. But JQC's reward will not be the same as someone who has served mankind with love even though he didn't know about Jesus Christ for as long as JQC did. Yet they are both saved.

If works were not such an important point, it would not have been mentioned over 100 times in the Bible. And it certainly would not have been part of the same sentence as faith. The second greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Here as well, there is a natural outflow of works because of the love you have for your neighbor. It is well understood, for instance, the love between a husband and wife will die if there are no "works" done for each other.

In the same way, faith will die without works. This does not mean you didn't have faith at some point. If your life is in the ****per, it is easy to stop doing things for others. This does not make you a bad person; it just means you are going through some type of learning period. When we remember how the Bible teaches us to serve others, however, we are able to look beyond our own problems and get back on track. During that stagnant period, our faith may not have been enough to inspire us to keep doing things for others. But that does not mean we were no longer saved. It all works together. One thing is built upon on another.

Regardless, I have stated several times it IS faith that saves. For example, suppose two men in a hospital room are on their death beds. Man #1 accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior there on his death bed. He is a thief. He never did anything kind for anyone else in his entire life. His faith will save him. (albeit his ordinances will still have to be performed following his death....but that is the subject for another thread) Man #2 accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior there on his death bed. He has been a loving, kind and generous man during his lifetime. He is saved as well (ditto about his ordinances needing to be performed). Both men will go to Heaven. The man who did the good works in his lifetime is going to receive the greater reward. Yet they are both saved.

I have NOT contradicted myself.

Your beliefs keep faith and works so far apart when discussing them, you diminish the important role that works has in the entire scheme of things. It is much easier for someone to ignore the works because they decide they just don't have the energy to do things for others. This is doing a great disservice to individuals because they are not focused on the entire picture. There is a great danger in this belief system for people to drop the ball on the importance of works.

True faith leads to repentance; repentance leads to love for our Savior and our Heavenly Father; this love leads to loving others; that love leads to good works. Faith saves us; good works increase our rewards. What beautiful truths these represent in reality since love for others breaks down the walls of distrust, fear, and hate. Alas, there is not much love to be found on this website for one another. Much more is given than is received. It is encouraging to note; however, that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

SavedbyTruth

Father_JD

02-18-2009, 03:54 PM

There IS more than one level in Heaven. Read Revelations. Read the Book of Enoch (I'm sure you can find a copy to read). Those are two sources written before Christ restored His Church.

Oh! When did the "Book of Enoch" BECOME A PART OF THE MORMON "STANDARD WORKS"??? Why should I care what's contained in a spurious Gnostic writing which the ancient church rightly dismissed as "scripture"???

Works help determine WHERE you are going to wind up in Heaven. Works do not save you. What do you not understand here???

While the Bible does NOT teach a multi-tiered "heaven" where even UNREPENTANT MURDERERS, ET AL GO TO, the Bible DOES teach that works determine the amount of REWARDS or lack thereof for the REDEEMED, it also teaches that works determine the amount of PUNISHMENT, greater or lesser for the REPROBATE, the ****ED.

You have made an interesting interpretation of the Bible. To me, being truly "converted" is what drives the desire to do good works.

Good one. I rarely agree with Mos but I can on this one. Perhaps a bit of your Lutheran background is peeking through here to which I say, "AMEN!!"

Continuing to keep the commandments is a reflection of being truly converted, and results in good works by the very nature of keeping many of the commandments.

Ok. So far so good...but what you write next is fraught with error:

There are many people who love their neighbors and their enemies and serve them who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their works will get them farther once they learn about Christ and have faith in Him as their Savior

The historic Christian position is that so-called "works" performed by the reprobate are not acceptable to God, having been born from an UNREGENERATE state. Re-read this five or six times before commenting.

then John Q. Citizen (JQC) who has had faith in Christ all of his life but is too distracted by the world to do things for others.

You've contradicted yourself again. Earlier you said that one one is truly converted that one WILL WANT TO SERVE OTHERS, etc. And NOW you're saying it's possible that there's FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS ALIVE. See your contradiction...yet?? Better re-read this several times as well.

At the end of their life, they both have faith which saves them. But JQC's reward will not be the same as someone who has served mankind with love even though he didn't know about Jesus Christ for as long as JQC did. Yet they are both saved.

Almost "Christian" but not quite. Both would be saved BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH, and faith alone.

If works were not such an important point, it would not have been mentioned over 100 times in the Bible. And it certainly would not have been part of the same sentence as faith. The second greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Here as well, there is a natural outflow of works because of the love you have for your neighbor. It is well understood, for instance, the love between a husband and wife will die if there are no "works" done for each other.

Never said works weren't "important"...just pointing out the Mormon heresy regarding them. Bottom line in Mormon soteriology?? Works save one along with faith.

In the same way, faith will die without works. This does not mean you didn't have faith at some point.

Now this idea is nearly "Roman Catholic". You've got works somehow preserving faith...it's the other way around: REAL Faith WILL result in works. If you have no "works", your "faith" was NOT ALIVE BUT A DEAD FAITH THAT CAN SAVE NO ONE.

If your life is in the ****per, it is easy to stop doing things for others. This does not make you a bad person; it just means you are going through some type of learning period. When we remember how the Bible teaches us to serve others, however, we are able to look beyond our own problems and get back on track. During that stagnant period, our faith may not have been enough to inspire us to keep doing things for others. But that does not mean we were no longer saved. It all works together. One thing is built upon on another.

Sorry, sbt...but you're so confused you affirm one thing one moment, and then affirm the OPPOSITE the next. First you said if one doesn't have "works" that one's faith WILL DIE. But now you say, one doesn't have works, but that doesn't mean "we were no longer saved". Do you think you can keep your story straight for just one moment??

Regardless, I have stated several times it IS faith that saves. For example, suppose two men in a hospital room are on their death beds. Man #1 accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior there on his death bed. He is a thief. He never did anything kind for anyone else in his entire life. His faith will save him. (albeit his ordinances will still have to be performed following his death....but that is the subject for another thread)

Ah. But you said in so many words that FAITH WAS SUFFICIENT. Now according to you it is NOT: "Ordinances WILL STILL HAVE TO BE PERFORMED...". Therefore the man's faith wasn't ENOUGH. Btw...the Bible does NOT teach "second chance" salvation. When one dies, either that one is IN CHRIST, or is NOT. "It's appointed unto man to die once, and AFTER THIS THE JUDGMENT".

Man #2 accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior there on his death bed. He has been a loving, kind and generous man during his lifetime. He is saved as well (ditto about his ordinances needing to be performed). Both men will go to Heaven. The man who did the good works in his lifetime is going to receive the greater reward. Yet they are both saved.

IF either were truly "saved" at their death beds, then YES.

I have NOT contradicted myself.

See answers above. You have several times contradicted yourself.

Your beliefs keep faith and works so far apart when discussing them, you diminish the important role that works has in the entire scheme of things. It is much easier for someone to ignore the works because they decide they just don't have the energy to do things for others. This is doing a great disservice to individuals because they are not focused on the entire picture. There is a great danger in this belief system for people to drop the ball on the importance of works.

Typical Mormon straw-man. Faith and works are INSEPERABLY BOUND. There. You can't say my belief keep them "far apart". It's YOU who thinks that works still somehow JUSTIFY ONE IN GOD'S SIGHT FROM A FORENSIC POINT OF VIEW. I suggest you really read and understand Eph. 2 for starters.

True faith leads to repentance; repentance leads to love for our Savior and our Heavenly Father; this love leads to loving others; that love leads to good works. Faith saves us; good works increase our rewards.

"We love Him because He FIRST loved us..." is what scripture teaches. But YES!!!! Good works increase our rewards FOR THE REDEEMED and seemingly "good" works LESSEN the punishment in HELL FOR THE REPROBATE.

What beautiful truths these represent in reality since love for others breaks down the walls of distrust, fear, and hate. Alas, there is not much love to be found on this website for one another. Much more is given than is received. It is encouraging to note; however, that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

Uh...there might be some hope for you, sbt. Although Mormonism has confused you, you still retain some correct understanding which is NOT MORMON. ;)

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-18-2009, 07:06 PM

Good one. I rarely agree with Mos but I can on this one. Perhaps a bit of your Lutheran background is peeking through here to which I say, "AMEN!!"

I grew up LDS. And this has been what I've been taught. By their fruits, ye shall know them. Your problem is that you have to maintain that satan inspires LDS to love our fellowman and serve God for selfish reasons, while you are the saint who does it because you are truly converted and stripped of self-pride.:rolleyes:

The historic Christian position is that so-called "works" performed by the reprobate are not acceptable to God, having been born from an UNREGENERATE state. Re-read this five or six times before commenting.

Well then, I hope you will some day have a change of heart so your good works will be acceptable to Him. :p

You've contradicted yourself again. Earlier you said that one one is truly converted then one WILL WANT TO SERVE OTHERS, etc. And NOW you're saying it's possible that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS ALIVE. See your contradiction...yet?? Better re-read this several times as well.

We all have a conscience, JD. Are you saying that God curses those who follow their conscience unless they somehow hear about Christ? That would be a turnoff.

Almost "Christian" but not quite. Both would be saved BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH, and faith alone.

Too bad that isn't possible for everyone under your system of beliefs JD, where only the lucky power-ball winners are saved. And the powerball lottery was done before any of us were born.:rolleyes:

SavedbyTruth

02-18-2009, 07:39 PM

Oh! When did the "Book of Enoch" BECOME A PART OF THE MORMON "STANDARD WORKS"??? Why should I care what's contained in a spurious Gnostic writing which the ancient church rightly dismissed as "scripture"???

While the Bible does NOT teach a multi-tiered "heaven" where even UNREPENTANT MURDERERS, ET AL GO TO, the Bible DOES teach that works determine the amount of REWARDS or lack thereof for the REDEEMED, it also teaches that works determine the amount of PUNISHMENT, greater or lesser for the REPROBATE, the ****ED.

Good one. I rarely agree with Mos but I can on this one. Perhaps a bit of your Lutheran background is peeking through here to which I say, "AMEN!!"

Ok. So far so good...but what you write next is fraught with error:

The historic Christian position is that so-called "works" performed by the reprobate are not acceptable to God, having been born from an UNREGENERATE state. Re-read this five or six times before commenting.

You've contradicted yourself again. Earlier you said that one one is truly converted that one WILL WANT TO SERVE OTHERS, etc. And NOW you're saying it's possible that there's FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS ALIVE. See your contradiction...yet?? Better re-read this several times as well.

Almost "Christian" but not quite. Both would be saved BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH, and faith alone.

Never said works weren't "important"...just pointing out the Mormon heresy regarding them. Bottom line in Mormon soteriology?? Works save one along with faith.

Now this idea is nearly "Roman Catholic". You've got works somehow preserving faith...it's the other way around: REAL Faith WILL result in works. If you have no "works", your "faith" was NOT ALIVE BUT A DEAD FAITH THAT CAN SAVE NO ONE.

Sorry, sbt...but you're so confused you affirm one thing one moment, and then affirm the OPPOSITE the next. First you said if one doesn't have "works" that one's faith WILL DIE. But now you say, one doesn't have works, but that doesn't mean "we were no longer saved". Do you think you can keep your story straight for just one moment??

Ah. But you said in so many words that FAITH WAS SUFFICIENT. Now according to you it is NOT: "Ordinances WILL STILL HAVE TO BE PERFORMED...". Therefore the man's faith wasn't ENOUGH. Btw...the Bible does NOT teach "second chance" salvation. When one dies, either that one is IN CHRIST, or is NOT. "It's appointed unto man to die once, and AFTER THIS THE JUDGMENT".

IF either were truly "saved" at their death beds, then YES.

See answers above. You have several times contradicted yourself.

Typical Mormon straw-man. Faith and works are INSEPERABLY BOUND. There. You can't say my belief keep them "far apart". It's YOU who thinks that works still somehow JUSTIFY ONE IN GOD'S SIGHT FROM A FORENSIC POINT OF VIEW. I suggest you really read and understand Eph. 2 for starters.

"We love Him because He FIRST loved us..." is what scripture teaches. But YES!!!! Good works increase our rewards FOR THE REDEEMED and seemingly "good" works LESSEN the punishment in HELL FOR THE REPROBATE.

Uh...there might be some hope for you, sbt. Although Mormonism has confused you, you still retain some correct understanding which is NOT MORMON. ;)

Dear Father_JD,

I have NOT contradicted myself. You are reading my comments through the eyes of someone with a fore-drawn conclusion. So you only see what you want to see to support that conclusion.

The very reason Heavenly Father has provided different levels in Heaven is to be just in the day of Judgment. It is interesting you admit there will be increased rewards for some. What are those rewards? If I were to apply the same logic you do to my comments, then I would have to say you have pretty well contradicted your statements as well. Either someone goes to Heaven, or they are ****ed. If they go to Heaven, somehow some individuals receive greater rewards than others. AND, it appears that some individuals can be MORE ****ed than others. How does THAT work???

I have tried to present different degrees of performing good works along with varying circumstances that can affect a person's faith during a lifetime on earth. This is not contradictory. It represents the degree of blessings our Heavenly Father wants to pour upon us.

For you to believe that a person going through hard times and is caught up for awhile in their own problems thereby failing to continue to serve others, means they were never converted and their faith was dead to begin with, is an abominable interpretation of the scriptures. It is also fraught with so much negativism, little room for hope is left for someone unfortunate enough to suffer a life of strife. Where is the incentive to even bother trying?

After seeing this all in writing again, I just become more thankful to be a member of the LDS Church.

God bless,

SavedbyTruth

P.S. I did NOT contradict myself. :)

Father_JD

02-18-2009, 09:00 PM

ROFLOL! Because you SAY you're not contradicting yourself, well then, that's just gotta be the truth, huh?

Typically Mormon: Nuh-uh response you think is a cogent reply. I've shown you just how and when you contradicted yourself.

And although you're convinced you're right, any objective third-party lurker can see just how Mormonism rots the brain.

Thanks for demonstrating the deleterious effects of Mormonism on the Mormon mind...

Father_JD

02-18-2009, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Good one. I rarely agree with Mos but I can on this one. Perhaps a bit of your Lutheran background is peeking through here to which I say, "AMEN!!"

I grew up LDS. And this has been what I've been taught. By their fruits, ye shall know them. Your problem is that you have to maintain that satan inspires LDS to love our fellowman and serve God for selfish reasons, while you are the saint who does it because you are truly converted and stripped of self-pride.

And? I grew up LDS as well and I know full well what I was taught: One is saved by BOTH Faith and WORKS. And there's NOTHING you or sbt have written that contradicts that FACT. But listen, Satan doesn't give a **** that you're "loving your fellowman" since you are serving an IDOL fashioned from the fetid imagination of your con-artist "prophet" who buried his face in his hat with his magic rock!! And remember this, the Bible says that IDOLATORS DO NOT HAVE A PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. :eek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
The historic Christian position is that so-called "works" performed by the reprobate are not acceptable to God, having been born from an UNREGENERATE state. Re-read this five or six times before commenting.

Well then, I hope you will some day have a change of heart so your good works will be acceptable to Him.

I'm the one regenerate in the BIBLICAL CHRIST and not your phony spirit-brother-of-Lucifer "jesus" of JS imagination, figgie. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
You've contradicted yourself again. Earlier you said that one one is truly converted then one WILL WANT TO SERVE OTHERS, etc. And NOW you're saying it's possible that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS ALIVE. See your contradiction...yet?? Better re-read this several times as well.

We all have a conscience, JD. Are you saying that God curses those who follow their conscience unless they somehow hear about Christ? That would be a turnoff.

The Bible teaches that by NATURE, we are the CHILDREN OF WRATH. You show you don't understand the first things about the HOLINESS OF GOD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Almost "Christian" but not quite. Both would be saved BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH, and faith alone.

Too bad that isn't possible for everyone under your system of beliefs JD, where only the lucky power-ball winners are saved. And the powerball lottery was done before any of us were born.

Sorry you can't abide what the Bible teaches, figgie...but that's the whole problem of your having had "itching ears...and have turned to FABLES".:D

Here ya go: Look for your profile in Paul's words...

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.

Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul says YOU'RE WRONG, figgie. :eek:

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-18-2009, 09:21 PM

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-18-2009, 09:32 PM

SavedbyTruth

02-18-2009, 10:13 PM

SbT,

There is not much hope in ever convincing His Infallibleness Father JD of anything. He is never wrong, and if he is, it is your fault some how.

But through all of his haughtiness and bellicose howling he believes he is excused and even sanctioned by a god which he thinks predetermined to give him an open license to sin and make a mockery of God's perfect justice and mercy. While others are predetermined to go to hell, though their hearts may be 10x more saintly than his.

That's a turnoff.

Fig,

I didn't know that Father_JD was LDS at one time. I have known a few people who left the Church. These are some observations of them once they leave, so I don't know if their actions are typical or not.

One young man who had just recently come back from his mission (he happened to be the only member in his family), lost his mother shortly after his mission. He was devastated. He had spoken to his Home Teacher letting him know that his mother was doing poorly. He had expected, and rightly so, that members of the Relief Society should have been visiting his mother to do whatever they could to help her. But only a few Sisters had visited his mother in her home. His mother admitted to him that she had told the Sisters it was not necessary for them to worry about her. She felt strange that members of the Church which she did not belong to should come to offer service to her. She had become ill during the last year of this young man's mission, but he had decided to fulfill his mission even though his Mission President offered to release him.

He is angry because he thinks the Church should have done more for his mother in spite of the fact she had asked them not to. In his anger, his non-LDS friends introduced him to one of the many websites, such as this one. Soon he was questioning everything. He left the Church. When I started speaking to him about this when he first left the Church, he was extremely bitter. He was convinced the Church WAS a cult; and it was everything the anti's claimed. As time has gone by, his anger has begun to subside and admits the anti's did affect him in a very negative way. He has not yet come full circle, but I have hopes he will someday return to the Church.

I tell the entire story because it offers a fairly good representation of the circumstances surrounding this young man's decision to leave the Church.

He is also angry with himself for not coming home when he was offered the chance and was therefore unable to spend more time with his mother. But he is not yet ready to admit that to himself. Instead, he has focused his emotions on other members of the Church. Perhaps the Sisters COULD have insisted on doing more for his mother. But they did not. However, whether they should or should not have done more is not for us to judge. The actions of people are frequently confused with the Church itself. The actions of people do not change what is true. Also, he is very angry with Heavenly Father for not allowing his mother to live longer.

The reason for sharing this story is to point out that when people do leave the Church, they are often very angry. Their anger is frequently due to an issue they have with Heavenly Father about something that has happened in their life, and not necessarily with the question of whether or not the Church is True. This is what I found with the few others I saw leave the Church.

I do not know why Father_JD left the Church. I certainly recognize an unnatural rage when I see it. He can barely control the scathing words he uses when attacking the Church. It boils over into his attacks on us as members of the Church. It is not based within the realm of logical reasoning. So I try to bite my tongue and control my own anger that this stranger would attack me, who does not even know me. Religious matters are filled with emotion, both good and bad, to begin with.

He has made it quite clear he is not interested in true religious debating. His agenda is to mock the LDS as well as the LDS Church. If he was interested in trying to sway us to believe in his new beliefs, he would not use sensationalism, misrepresation, anger, and ripping apart the LDS posters in order to do so. In conclusion, he is not really interested in "saving" us at all. Unless, of course, he thinks the tactics that he uses actually have the capacity to "save" someone.

SavedbyTruth

Richard

02-18-2009, 10:14 PM

SavedbyTruth

02-19-2009, 12:55 AM

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-19-2009, 01:05 AM

I gave a lesson on Apostasy in our Hight Priest cl***, very interesting and enlightening. I hate to say it, but JD actually fits the lesson to a tee. Once having the light of Christ, and then for what ever reason allowing doubt to creep in, speaking evil of the Doctrine, and making light of Joseph Smith in ridicule and mocking, serve one of two masters, the Book of Mormon was replete with those who fell captive to Satan's masterful deceit and trickery. Most apostates usually reject the Authority of our Church Leaders. This is a area the the adversary always aims at, and I have noticed that JD is quick to find fault when the discussion becomes a little hard for him to address, such as Faith and Works. With Biblical Christians they are inclined to reject authority of men, but have given all there commitment to the Word of God, and that only. Rejecting latter day Prophets and closing the Heavens to further revelations. We often find that they unwittingly dictate what God can and can't do. Whoever arrays himself in any manner against the authority which God has placed in His Church for its government, no matter who it is, unless he repents God WILL withdraw His spirit and power from him.

Quite right, Richard. And much like the pages of the Bible which are bound, they also would presume to bind God himself, encapsulating Him into a small package and quoting chapter and verse on the one hand that 'God will save whom He will save', and in the next breath they say that 'God has already saved me because of my profession of faith, but not you.'

It is the height of pride.

2 Pet. 2: 20.
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Heb. 6:4-6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-19-2009, 01:09 AM

This whole thing just brings me to tears. I would so much rather the entire world would be filled with the joy that is available to them.

SbT

It is sad, SbT. Imagine how the prophets of old such as Enoch felt, to see God on His throne weeping for mankind.

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?
30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;
31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;
33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;
34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them. (Moses 7:29-34)

Father_JD

02-19-2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Sorry you can't abide what the Bible teaches, figgie...but that's the whole problem of your having had "itching ears...and have turned to FABLES".

Here ya go: Look for your profile in Paul's words...

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

But your theology makes God unrighteous, jaydee. Wish you could see that.

Wish you could read the Bible IN CONTEXT figgie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.

That means you are not in the pocket, yet, JD. You better watch your P's and Q's, because there will be a judgment, and you 'aint gonna skip it.

Your response does not engage the text, figgie. The p***age demonstrates GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY IN WHOM WILL BE SAVED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

God giveth grace to the humble. 1 Pet 5:5, James 4:6. Hope you learn what that means before it grows too late.

Uh, in typical Mormon fashion, you REFUSE to engage the Biblical text which is cited, and instead proffer OTHER scripture you THINK supports Mormon contentions. So NOW engage the above text, figgie in which it's clearly TAUGHT that it's NOT one who WILLS for salvation, NOR one who RUNS after it, but all based upon GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

So what. God knew Pharaoh before he was born. And put him in that position knowing that Pharaoh would make his own choices.

Yes...so? You're missing the point: God's SOVEREIGNTY in appointing Pharaoh as a VESSEL OF WRATH.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Uh, why not comment, fig? You couldn't make the p***age conform to Mormon dogma?? Why no reply here, figgie?? :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul says YOU'RE WRONG, figgie.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

James says you're wrong jaydee.

LOL. DISMISS and IGNORE ROMANS and proffer a text you mistakenly THINK supports your contention, figster. What does James 1:13 have to do with the other text?? The text merely states that God doesn't "tempt" one to SIN so just how does this negate or make a cogent reply tot he fact that God allows sinful man to remain in his sins and be the VESSELS FIT FOR DESTRUCTION??

Your answer is nothing but a non-sequitur.

Now, how about REALLY addressing Romans 9 which you failed to do here except to give the typical Mormon "Nuh-uh" reply???? :rolleyes:

SavedbyTruth

02-19-2009, 04:07 PM

Richard,

Sadly, it appears you have hit the nail on the head.

SbT

Father_JD

02-19-2009, 06:44 PM

Father_JD

02-19-2009, 06:52 PM

Mesenja

02-23-2009, 06:38 AM

nrajeff

02-23-2009, 07:58 AM

A comment about the whole faith "vs." works issue: Perhaps it is just semantics that are being used to create a contradiction that does not exist.
FJD said:
Faith is required.
Works are required.

But St. James seems to say that any faith that lacks accompanying good acts was dead faith and therefore unable to result in saving grace. In other words, REAL, LIVING FAITH (of sufficient strength) in Jesus is all a person needs to be saved. LDS agree with that 100% I think. And if Evangelicals agree with that as well, then we are all united on the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. So we can stop pretending that there is some "wide divide" between us, and we can instead fight over issues where we really, actually don't agree. Like what the correct minimum requirements for being called a Christian are.

Father_JD

02-23-2009, 03:05 PM

Of course you don't need to know anything at all about the Book of Mormon FatherJD. Why should you since you already know everything concerning our doctrine by the process of osmosis when sitting on the pew. So can you do NRAJeff and myself both a favour and quit ****ing so much hot air in our direction as we both know the source that it is coming from.

Bogus scripture results in bogus BELIEFS. As long as you conflate BOM with the Bible, your understanding of the bible will always be SKEWED because this prevents you from reading and understanding the Bible WITHIN ITS OWN CONTEXT. You keep muddying the waters when you do this.

And yes FatherJD we know the process of being born again. It is outlined to us in the Book of Mormon. But of course you don't need to know anything it contains. As you have so eloquently put it "I don't give a flip what your screed tells you,Messdude." Oh and by the way are you going to continue with your immaturity? It appears that you are as you insist on deliberately misspelling my forum nickname.

I won't deign to give validiy to your moniker. You are NO messenger of Jehovah. :eek:

FatherJD I am demonstrating an error in your knowledge of the Book of Mormon at this very moment as I have demonstrated it in the past and with your track record I am confident I can do so in the future.

I am demonstrating your error in UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE BY SUPERIMPOSING ALIEN MORMON MEANING ONTO THE BIBLICAL TEXT VIA THE BOM.

You can say what you want FatherJD but I am not "merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine" and neither is NRAJeff. You have been exposed for what you are. Loudly braying for anyone to hear about your expertise in Mormonism but when shown your error your choice is to try and change the subject such as debating the doctrine of free will.

You haven't yet once demonstrated my "error", messy. Dream on. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-23-2009, 03:08 PM

A comment about the whole faith "vs." works issue: Perhaps it is just semantics that are being used to create a contradiction that does not exist.
FJD said:
Faith is required.
Works are required.

I did not write that "works are required" in justifying or saving one. I've always maintatined that works are the demonstration that one has a LIVING FAITH. This faith WILL result in works. The works are the "proof", jeff.

But St. James seems to say that any faith that lacks accompanying good acts was faith and therefore unable to result in saving grace. In other words, REAL, LIVING FAITH (of sufficient strength) in Jesus is all a person needs to be saved. LDS agree with that 100% I think. And if Evangelicals agree with that as well, then we are all united on the doctrine of salvation by grave through faith. So we can stop pretending that there is some "wide divide" between us, and we can instead fight over issues where we really, actually don't agree. Like what the correct minimum requirements for being called a Christian are.

So you are convinced but ALL LDS demonstrate the opposite: WORKS DO JUSTIFY AND SAVE ONE IN ADDITION TO ANY "FAITH".

SavedbyTruth

02-23-2009, 05:48 PM

[/COLOR]

I did not write that "works are required" in justifying or saving one. I've always maintatined that works are the demonstration that one has a LIVING FAITH. This faith WILL result in works. The works are the "proof", jeff.

So you are convinced but ALL LDS demonstrate the opposite: WORKS DO JUSTIFY AND SAVE ONE IN ADDITION TO ANY "FAITH".

Only to the extent those who do more with their talents and good works, to the best of their ability, will receive a greater award.

Yet people will do as little as possible, and Christ knows what is in their hearts, their reward will not be as great as others.

They are still saved.

SbT

Mesenja

02-24-2009, 07:41 AM

Bogus scripture results in bogus BELIEFS. As long as you conflate Book Of Mormon with the Bible,your understanding of the Bible will always be SKEWED because this prevents you from reading and understanding the Bible WITHIN ITS OWN CONTEXT. You keep muddying the waters when you do this.

Try picking up the Book of Mormon for once in your life and compare it's doctrines on the process of being spiritually born again to that of the Bible. Then come back and say that it's teachings on the subject are skewed and muddied. Otherwise you are just ****ing hot air in our direction and we all know where that comes from don't we.

I won't deign to give validity to your moniker. You are NO messenger of Jehovah. :eek:

So you deign to give validity to acting like an immature school boy and resort to what is in effect the internet equivalent of name calling?

I am demonstrating your error in UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE BY SUPERIMPOSING ALIEN MORMON MEANING ONTO THE BIBLICAL TEXT VIA THE Book of Mormon.

You are demonstrating nothing of the kind FatherJD except that your opinion on anything is to be taken over actual knowledge of the subject at hand. All you are doing besides ****ing hot air our way is braying loudly on how I am in error by superimposing alien Mormon meaning onto biblical text via the Book of Mormon. For once in your life pick up both scriptures and show me how I am wrong.

You haven't yet once demonstrated my "error",Mesenja. Dream on. :rolleyes:

I have demonstrated your error by showing you that despite your contention to the contrary of our not knowing of the biblical doctrine of being born again the Book of Mormon teaches us that "all mankind,yea men and woman,all nations,kindred,tongues and people,must be born again;yea changed from their carnal and fallen state,to a state of righteousness,being redeemed of God,becoming his sons and daughters."

SavedbyTruth

02-24-2009, 08:58 AM

Bogus scripture results in bogus BELIEFS. As long as you conflate BOM with the Bible, your understanding of the bible will always be SKEWED because this prevents you from reading and understanding the Bible WITHIN ITS OWN CONTEXT. You keep muddying the waters when you do this.

I won't deign to give validiy to your moniker. You are NO messenger of Jehovah. :eek:

I am demonstrating your error in UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE BY SUPERIMPOSING ALIEN MORMON MEANING ONTO THE BIBLICAL TEXT VIA THE BOM.

You haven't yet once demonstrated my "error", messy. Dream on. :rolleyes:

I learned the truths in the Bible long before I was introduced to the LDS Church, Russ. Your comments do not have a leg to stand on.

You continue to show who you really are. It is YOU the Bible has warned us about.

To be disrespectful of someone's moniker is representative of your disrespect for truth in general. It exposes you for the type of person you are. YOU are a disrespector of persons. Heavenly Father and Jesus are NOT.

For you to claim you are an expert about Mormonism and then to admit to believe that our scriptures are bogus is proof for the reasons you DON'T teach what the LDS believe. Instead you teach lies about our beliefs in your sick and twisted attempt to hide the truth. If you really thought our teachings were bogus, you would not need to resort to telling lies. Did you catch that? IF YOU REALLY THOUGHT OUR TEACHINGS WERE BOGUS, YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO RESORT TO TELLING LIES. It is satan who controls you Russ. Beware!!! Give him up and return to the Truth and the Light of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

SbT

Father_JD

02-24-2009, 10:54 AM

I learned the truths in the Bible long before I was introduced to the LDS Church, Russ. Your comments do not have a leg to stand on.

Why are you addressing Russ whilst quoting parts of MY post? Regardless, you do NOT know your Bible. If you had, you would NEVER have joined the LDS Church, sbt. :eek:

You continue to show who you really are. It is YOU the Bible has warned us about.

To be disrespectful of someone's moniker is representative of your disrespect for truth in general. It exposes you for the type of person you are. YOU are a disrespector of persons. Heavenly Father and Jesus are NOT.

I will not recognize a FALSE moniker since he is anything but the "messenger of Jehovah", sbt. Instead of attacking me (which speaks volumes about YOU) why don't you just engage scripture, etc?

For you to claim you are an expert about Mormonism and then to admit to believe that our scriptures are bogus is proof for the reasons you DON'T teach what the LDS believe. Instead you teach lies about our beliefs in your sick and twisted attempt to hide the truth.

LOL. And just how did I "lie" or misrepresent LDS beliefs?? Your response is nothing more than the typical vapid "Nuh-uh" Mormon reply.

If you really thought our teachings were bogus, you would not need to resort to telling lies. Did you catch that? IF YOU REALLY THOUGHT OUR TEACHINGS WERE BOGUS, YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO RESORT TO TELLING LIES. It is satan who controls you Russ. Beware!!! Give him up and return to the Truth and the Light of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

SbT

Where have I told "lies"??? No where and your accusations are empty and without any merit, sbt. Think about that...that you can NOT give a reasoned reply and instead engage in ad hom attacks. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-24-2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Bogus scripture results in bogus BELIEFS. As long as you conflate Book Of Mormon with the Bible,your understanding of the Bible will always be SKEWED because this prevents you from reading and understanding the Bible WITHIN ITS OWN CONTEXT. You keep muddying the waters when you do this.

Try picking up the Book of Mormon for once in your life and compare it's doctrines on the process of being spiritually born again to that of the Bible. Then come back and say that it's teachings on the subject are skewed and muddied. Otherwise you are just ****ing hot air in our direction and we all know where that comes from don't we.

Sorry, the BOM is a proven FRAUD, messy. One who knows ones Bible can readily tell FAKE scripture from the real. You've been punked by JS. :cool:

Originally Posted by Father_JD
I won't deign to give validity to your moniker. You are NO messenger of Jehovah.

So you deign to give validity to acting like an immature school boy and resort to what is in effect the internet equivalent of name calling?

Well then, MESSY, what should I call you? How about giving a REAL name instead of hiding behind aliases??

Originally Posted by Father_JD
I am demonstrating your error in UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE BY SUPERIMPOSING ALIEN MORMON MEANING ONTO THE BIBLICAL TEXT VIA THE Book of Mormon.

You are demonstrating nothing of the kind FatherJD except that your opinion on anything is to be taken over actual knowledge of the subject at hand. All you are doing besides ****ing hot air our way is braying loudly on how I am in error by superimposing alien Mormon meaning onto biblical text via the Book of Mormon. For once in your life pick up both scriptures and show me how I am wrong.

You superimpose Mormon meaning from ALL sources of Mormon teaching, be they from the BOM or other writings. There's NO OTHER explanation for the bizarre Mormon "interpretations" such as Eze. 37 teaching a prophecy for scripture!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
You haven't yet once demonstrated my "error",Mesenja. Dream on.

I have demonstrated your error by showing you that despite your contention to the contrary of our not knowing of the biblical doctrine of being born again the Book of Mormon teaches us that "all mankind,yea men and woman,all nations,kindred,tongues and people,must be born again;yea changed from their and fallen state,to a state of righteousness,being redeemed of God,becoming his sons and daughters."

But you already you're a spirit son of God, messy. And where does the Bible teach that ALL mankind will be "born again". It doesn't teach that...but if you must know, all of Mormonism has RE-DEFINED BIBLICAL TERMS AND THEIR MEANINGS...and well you know that. :eek:

SavedbyTruth

02-24-2009, 12:31 PM

[QUOTE=Father_JD;6308]Why are you addressing Russ whilst quoting parts of MY post? Regardless, you do NOT know your Bible. If you had, you would NEVER have joined the LDS Church, sbt. :eek:

I joined the LDS Church because I DO know the Bible. What you should be saying is this: "Regardless, you have different interpretations about what the Bible teaches than I do. If you had the same interpretations as me, you would never have joined the LDS Church." Instead you make an accusation claiming I don't know the Bible (a lie). This is a desperate effort on your part to once more avoid the truth.

I will not recognize a FALSE moniker since he is anything but the "messenger of Jehovah", sbt. Instead of attacking me (which speaks volumes about YOU) why don't you just engage scripture, etc?

Here you actually are attacking someone's moniker. A "moniker"! You show tremendous disrespect! So where does YOUR moniker come from? What does it stand for??

LOL. And just how did I "lie" or misrepresent LDS beliefs?? Your response is nothing more than the typical vapid "Nuh-uh" Mormon reply.

I can continue to point to your misrepresentations of what our beliefs are, but you will not make the necessary changes to present them accurately. That is YOUR continuing lie. When you cannot wiggle your way out of the obvious you resort to your pathetic "typical vapid 'Nuh-un' Mormon reply" response, and falsely believe you have turned attention back on us. Yet still there are all of your lies, evident and plain for the world to view.

SbT

nrajeff

02-24-2009, 02:31 PM

Regardless, you do NOT know your Bible. If you had, you would NEVER have joined the LDS Church, sbt. :eek:

--But YOU were LDS for over a decade. Does that mean that for all those years, you did NOT know your Bible?

Richard

02-24-2009, 09:38 PM

Uh, why is this mutually-congratulatory pats on the back post appended to mine??

LOL. If anyone has "hit the nail on the head" 'tis I who exposes the darkness of Mormonism.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity!

Humorous JDee, You never exposed anything, all your work was researched for you years ago, and as Mosser/Owens pointed out quiet accurately ----

"The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms."

:)So JDee, maybe you need to get a new anti-book so you can be more up to date. Check out Russ web site, he has a great collection of criticisms that we have pretty much demolished, but if you're happy to continue with the old re-hash, what can we say? May the Gods of snippets and sensationalism be ever the mark of poor Evangelical Criticisms. So in other words not even knowing your loosing.

Brother Richard. ;) :)

Richard

02-24-2009, 09:45 PM

I see you're back being hypocritical, figgie, attack the Bible one minute and then cite it in SUPPORT of your contentions thereby tacitly conveying both inerrancy and infallibility to those very verses.

As Richard would say, "Very interesting"!!

He's not attacking the Bible, don't you remember your Priesthood lessons JDee, Joseph Smith corrected much of the errors found. So as a much learned past member, you should have picked up on that before making such a blunderous statement.

Blunderous is not a word, but what the heck, it should be in your case.

Regards, Richard.

Father_JD

02-25-2009, 12:16 PM

He's not attacking the Bible, don't you remember your Priesthood lessons JDee, Joseph Smith corrected much of the errors found. So as a much learned past member, you should have picked up on that before making such a blunderous statement.

Blunderous is not a word, but what the heck, it should be in your case.

Regards, Richard.

First of all, JS "corrected" nothing. You believe he did, but there's NOTHING OBJECTIVE to prove or demonstrate that he did any such thing. All you've got is a warm-fuzzy.

Nothing you say negates the fact that Mormons use the Bible hypocritically:

Attack the Bible's inerrancy and infallibility yet...
Cite it when thought a given verse or p***age supports Mormon contentions.

Obviously, THOSE cited verses are necessarily both inerrant and infallible for you to invoke their authority.

Duh. Why is it you Mos don't see this?? :eek:

Father_JD

02-25-2009, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Why are you addressing Russ whilst quoting parts of MY post? Regardless, you do NOT know your Bible. If you had, you would NEVER have joined the LDS Church, sbt.

I joined the LDS Church because I DO know the Bible. What you should be saying is this: "Regardless, you have different interpretations about what the Bible teaches than I do. If you had the same interpretations as me, you would never have joined the LDS Church." Instead you make an accusation claiming I don't know the Bible (a lie). This is a desperate effort on your part to once more avoid the truth.

I stand by my ***essment of your Biblical IGNORANCE. It's NOT a case of "interpretation", the moldy-oldy Mormon excuse for DISBELIEVING the clear teaching of scripture.

WHERE does the Bible teach that Jesus and Lucifer were "spirit brothers"?? It does NOT. Instead the Bible teaches that Jesus is GOD INCARNATE, has always BEEN (which means UNCREATE) and Lucifer is a CREATED BEING, now a fallen angel.

That's just one example of your blatant IGNORANCE of scripture: To confuse the creation with the creator. Sheesh. :eek:

Quote:
I will not recognize a FALSE moniker since he is anything but the "messenger of Jehovah", sbt. Instead of attacking me (which speaks volumes about YOU) why don't you just engage scripture, etc?

Here you actually are attacking someone's moniker. A "moniker"! You show tremendous disrespect! So where does YOUR moniker come from? What does it stand for??

I do not respect FALSE beliefs nor their proponents. I'm an ordained Anglican priest, hence "Father" and the two initials of my given names.

Quote:
LOL. And just how did I "lie" or misrepresent LDS beliefs?? Your response is nothing more than the typical vapid "Nuh-uh" Mormon reply.

I can continue to point to your misrepresentations of what our beliefs are, but you will not make the necessary changes to present them accurately. That is YOUR continuing lie. When you cannot wiggle your way out of the obvious you resort to your pathetic "typical vapid 'Nuh-un' Mormon reply" response, and falsely believe you have turned attention back on us. Yet still there are all of your lies, evident and plain for the world to view.

Ri-i-i-ight as you continue to do the Mormon "dodge" dance-step, refusing to give any basis to your lame-o Mormon ***ertions. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-25-2009, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Regardless, you do NOT know your Bible. If you had, you would NEVER have joined the LDS Church, sbt.

--But YOU were LDS for over a decade. Does that mean that for all those years, you did NOT know your Bible?

Correction, jeff. I was LDS for over 20 years. But NO, I didn't know my Bible, but bought the pre-digested Mormon "spin" just like you've done.

By God's GRACE, I began to read the Bible IN ITS OWN CONTEXT, minus the Mormon "spin" and discovered that the LDS Church couldn't exegete itself out of a wet bag. I found that the Bible not only didn't give any support to Mormon contentions, but in fact CONTRADICTED most Mormon beliefs.

The communication barrier is this: You can't but help superimpose Mormon meaning onto the Biblical text, skewing your understanding of it as well as blinding you to what's REALLY being communicated there. :eek:

Father_JD

02-25-2009, 12:29 PM

You almost sound, "Christian"...but when push comes to shove, you will ALWAYS deny that salvation (and I'm NOT referring to resurrection!) is BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH by somehow adding works back into the mix.

Father_JD

02-25-2009, 12:32 PM

I've exposed the Mormon modus operandi:

Conflate alien Mormon meaning with Biblical teaching, thereby skewing the Mormon's understanding of the Bible's teaching.

I've given examples, but for those who don't "get it" the first hundred times:

Mormon misreading of Eze. 37 as a "prophecy" for scripture.

You superimpose Mormon meaning onto the Biblical text whose context does NOT support Mormon contentions.

The sad thing is that even when shown, word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph (literally spoon-feeding you) that the p***age in question can NOT support Mormon ***ertions, you're blind to the fact and can only retort, "Nuh-uh!!"

Sara

02-25-2009, 12:44 PM

Sure.

Some say Joseph Smith got the idea to practice polygamy from Martin Luther, who sanctioned polygamy and advocated it to Philip of Hesse and to the founder of JD's Anglican Church, King Henry the 8th. I think it's more likely he just got the idea from the clear evidence in the Bible. You are aware of course that more Evangelicals practice polygamy today than members of the Church of Jesus Christ did in their entire history, no? It's sanctioned by Baptists, Anglicans, etc., mostly in Africa.

Your ***ertions concerning marital manipulation by Joseph are obviously manufactured to paint polygamy evil and Joseph a scoundrel, but indeed throughout history, women have been taken advantage of in marriage. If you have a problem with that, perhaps if you reach out your hand I can lift you onto the bandwagon with me.

s.

It doesn't excuse Joseph Smith, just because other people did it. What he did, threatening those young girls and their families with their eternal salvation was beyond repugnant, and evil.

Father_JD

02-26-2009, 01:50 PM

the founder of JD's Anglican Church, King Henry the 8th

Henry did not "found" the church. Christ did. Henry merely nationalized the church and separated it from Rome.

Talk about old wive's tales!!

Trinity

02-26-2009, 02:06 PM

Henry did not "found" the church. Christ did. Henry merely nationalized the church and separated it from Rome.

Talk about old wive's tales!!

Just for the little story, Henry VIII was a polygamist too. :)

We can find traces of polygamy in all churches. My Church has elevated the vows of celibacy as important but for the Mormons it was the polygamy. Historically and sociologically, the first one is more easy to defend, than the other.

Saint Augustine saw a conflict with Old Testament polygamy. He writes in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15) that, although it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." He refrained from judging the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. In chapter 7, he wrote, "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living."

Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication," a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal. Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamist#Christianity

Trinity

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-26-2009, 07:15 PM

It doesn't excuse Joseph Smith, just because other people did it. What he did, threatening those young girls and their families with their eternal salvation was beyond repugnant, and evil.

Joseph didn't enter into plural marriage because others did it. It all comes down to the word IF.

If Joseph was commanded to enter into plural marriage, then it is God you have your argument with. I'm not sure, but even you might lose that one.:D

Father_JD

02-27-2009, 12:30 PM

Considering Henry was not "divorced", he was a "polygamist" or better put, "bigamist" by default.

Sara

02-27-2009, 10:25 PM

Joseph didn't enter into plural marriage because others did it. It all comes down to the word IF.

If Joseph was commanded to enter into plural marriage, then it is God you have your argument with. I'm not sure, but even you might lose that one.:D

IF Joseph Smith was "commanded" to practice polygamy, it wasn't by God. It was probably the same spirit that told him to defraud people of their money by using his stone-in-the-hat trick to do his treasure digging.

Russ

03-01-2009, 05:08 PM

Thank goodness that today we don't get run of of town for religious views, political views, and just people didn't want us around. Me thinks Russ would have been one of those doing the chasing.

R. :)

You are SOOO right on this one.

If Joseph came sneakin' around asking for my wife or my friend's wives, we would indeed be doing some chasing.

We can indeed speak of LDSism in a free country. You are free to believe as you see fit.

But if any of your "prophets of God" ever decide to pull their shenanigans again you can bet that they'll be making front page news, just like Warren Jeffs. In fact, we'll make sure that they get a bunk near his.

Mesenja

03-02-2009, 01:30 PM

Are you that obtuse that you can't see it...even beginning in the Garden of Eden with the creation of Adam and Eve,NOT Adam and Eve,and Susie, and Wendy,and Elizabeth,and Nancy,and Jennifer,et al. ????

Or from such verses is that "a man shall leave his family and cleave to his WIFE (notice, SINGULAR) and the two become one flesh"????

Everyone that disagrees with your understanding of the Bible is labeled obtuse.This so called truth that you hold is not self evident.

Moses who authored the book of Genesis where you take your proof text from was a polygamist with two wives and would know if this was not part of God's plan. Also if we were to follow the original plan of God for Adam and Eve then 1. people must only walk around in nudity,and 2. people would never die.

Father_JD

03-04-2009, 09:30 AM

Everyone that disagrees with your understanding of the Bible is labeled obtuse.This so called truth that you hold is not self evident.

Moses who authored the book of Genesis where you take your proof text from was a polygamist with two wives and would know if this was not part of God's plan. Also if we were to follow the original plan of God for Adam and Eve then 1. people must only walk around in nudity,and 2. people would never die.

Did God ALLOW polygamy?? Yes. Did He COMMAND it? NO!! Regardless, it's clear from scripture that He created woman for man...NOT women for man. :rolleyes:

Sara

03-04-2009, 01:34 PM

Libby do your history and research of the times, not so much in comparing what is standard today and what was maybe at times essential than. Then ask if what Joseph Smith did was immoral, and if so how can you show proof that he was immoral.

Sincerely, Priest, HankSaint and Richard.

Apparently Libby has done more history than you have. The questions she asked were absolutely pertinent.

What Joseph Smith did was immoral and also illegal back then, just as much as it is now.

If he had stayed away from little girls and other mens' wives, he might have lived longer.

Mesenja

03-04-2009, 10:01 PM

If he had stayed away from little girls and other mens wive's,he might have lived longer.

But this vile implication that Joseph Smith was a paedophile and adulterer shows that you haven't.

Libby

03-05-2009, 12:12 AM

Apparently Libby has done more history than you have. The questions she asked were absolutely pertinent.

What Joseph Smith did was immoral and also illegal back then, just as much as it is now.

If he had stayed away from little girls and other mens' wives, he might have lived longer.

Hi Sara......Just to set the record straight (as I really don't want to involve myself further in this discussion), I didn't really do enough research. I listened to a lot of opinions, many of which were wrong, I believe. There is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever.

I left the LDS Church for a year and half, but I have just recently returned, and believe Joseph to be a true Prophet.

bcspace

03-05-2009, 12:15 AM

There is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever.

You are correct. There is just speculation.

Sara

03-05-2009, 01:06 AM

Richard

03-05-2009, 09:13 AM

I'm sorry to hear that, Libby. You really should have done some research then to find out for yourself. There is proof.

Well Sara, that is what Libby is telling you, she has found that the research done by others is false and does not prove he did anything immoral. So far you have not provide anything that shows otherwise, you say Emma found Joseph and Fanny together, that she walked in on them, but you do not prove it was Emma making the accusation. What you produced was here-say, and gossip.

R.

baptizedinChrist

03-05-2009, 01:03 PM

Sara

03-05-2009, 01:11 PM

Well Sara, that is what Libby is telling you, she has found that the research done by others is false and does not prove he did anything immoral. So far you have not provide anything that shows otherwise, you say Emma found Joseph and Fanny together, that she walked in on them, but you do not prove it was Emma making the accusation. What you produced was here-say, and gossip.

R.

Richard, I could reincarnate Fannie Alger herself, and you still wouldn't believe her. You would try to discredit her, the same way you're doing now.

JDErickson

03-05-2009, 03:59 PM

Bob Betts

03-05-2009, 06:40 PM

Hi Sara......Just to set the record straight (as I really don't want to involve myself further in this discussion), I didn't really do enough research. I listened to a lot of opinions, many of which were wrong, I believe. There is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever.

I left the LDS Church for a year and half, but I have just recently returned, and believe Joseph to be a true Prophet.Hi Libby, I hope you've forgiven me, as I asked at CC. I still very much love you, continue to trust God for your salvation.

Anita told me that some of the old regulars are posting here, and invited me to join in. So, here I am.

For the record, I put Richard on my ignore list, as soon as I registered here. After what I have witnessed in the initial private e-mails he sent me that I read, I'm convinced that he is possessed of a demon. Anita informed me that he's been back-biting me, here. So, I don't want to hear or respond to anything he says to or about me.

Now, I observed your wording about your view of the evidence regarding Joseph Smith's character and behavior. You said that you believe that many of the opinions about him are wrong. That leaves the door wide open, that you could believe that some of the opinions are not just opinions, but are facts which you aren't prepared to defend.

So, are you of the opinion that Joseph Smith did not marry any married woman? On the list of Smith's wives at LDS.org, four of those married women are listed as his wives. 1. Zina Huntington Jacobs, married to Henry Jacobs at the time Smith married her; 2. Precendia Huntington Buell, married to Norman Buell at the time Smith married her; 3. Sylvia Sessions Lyon, married to Windsor Lyon at the time that Smith married her; 4. Mary Rollins Lightner, married to Adam Lightner at the time that Smith married her.

So, you cannot deny that even your "church" acknowledges that he married four non-virgins, which is in violation of D&C 132:61. If he married virgins, it was adultery. This is neither opinion nor conjecture. This is fact.

Therefore, your ***essment that "there is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever," is only true if he had no sex with them. But, it's still adultery to marry a non-virgin and/or someone espoused to another, according to D&C 132:61, which is what Smith did.

But, Mormons will argue, that he didn't have sex with any of them, so it doesn't matter. Yet, D&C 132:63 states that the reason for God to command plural marriage of Smith was "to multiply and replenish the earth." Therefore, if Smith did NOT have sexual relations with ALL of his plural wives, in order to multiply and replenish the earth, then every wife he didn't have sexual relations with was a violation of the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Multiply that violation of withholding sexual relations, for the purpose of having children, and you have at least 33 violations of the law of the priesthood, D&C 132:63, depending on how many times he SHOULD have reasonably had sexual relations with all of his wives, to attempt to bare children.

Breaking a commandment of God, a minimum of 33 times. Would that alone, not fall under the category of evil fruit, according to Jesus' teaching about false prophets in Matt. 7:18? Add to that, marrying other men's wives. Smith was an evil man, and I haven't even gotten started on his dozens of false prophecies, one of which was exposed by David Whitmer. A prophecy which didn't come to p***, and is strangely absent from the D&C. Cover up?

nrajeff

03-05-2009, 07:31 PM

You are correct. There is just speculation.

---To be precise, what there is, is accusations. Where the speculation part enters in, is where people speculate that the accusations are true.

Richard

03-05-2009, 10:04 PM

Quoting Honest Abe Bobb Betts.
Anita told me that some of the old regulars are posting here, and invited me to join in. So, here I am.

For the record, I put Richard on my ignore list, as soon as I registered here. After what I have witnessed in the initial private e-mails he sent me that I read, I'm convinced that he is possessed of a demon. Anita informed me that he's been back-biting me, here. So, I don't want to hear or respond to anything he says to or about me.

Interesting post, and I have no idea who Anita is, but if she is sharing that I have been back-biting Bob Betts, I sure would like to know where she gets that from. So will the real Anita step forward and please enlighten me with any post other then the one I will quote below. Please Anita set the record straight for all of us who post here, or will your silence be a indicator that you might be making things up that never happened. Since Bob Betts suggests otherwise, it would be interesting for you to prove your accusations.

My one post regarding Bob Betts here at Walter Martin:

Quote:Russ.
OP topic, "Re:Richard demonstrates the fruit of his flesh. 5 Hours, 28 Minutes ago

Russ states,
Good for you for posting his thoughts, Bob. Keep them right here for people to see the bragging and boasting. Serves him right to have his M.O. revealed.

Libby, if you're reading, you are most sincerely in my prayers.
Your friend

My reply to Russ,

The above is Posted at CC, so it's not a private message.

Yes, Russ you got to see my thoughts, but you never got to see my full email to Bob, and he was quick to get back on line to twist even more of what I said personally to him. That Russ is your fearless leader, dishonest by not allowing me to post anything in defense of my self. I asked him personally to post all of my responses now, and gave him permission to do so. We will wait to see if he is the honest Christian you make him out to be.

If you have noticed, Libby responded with the truth, and I love her for that.
She is twice the person Bob Betts will ever hope to be. Libby does not lie.
What you did not realize Russ, was the private message to Bob was my concern that he was badgering Libby and she needed time to sort things out for herself. Not one LDS poster I know, has ever put any pressure on her to do this or do that. Interesting that Bob does not understand sensitivity. Libby never stated one way or another her decision to rejoin the LDS Church. So how can I gloat? if that is not happening to my knowledge Russ. Yes, I'm excited for her, mostly because she is doing it on her own.

Regards, Richard.

PS, Since you don't know the whole story, you don't know my MO.

So Anita, where is the back-biting you claim? I sent Bob Betts several emails, asking him to take off my private and personal email I sent. He posted it at CC for all to see and completely embar***ed me and Libby. I asked to be able to respond and defend myself, he shut me out completely and acted as a victim. He is being very, very dishonest here, and even Libby called him out on his deception, and that is the truth.

Richard.

Richard

03-05-2009, 11:11 PM

Bob Betts;7541]Hi Libby, I hope you've forgiven me, as I asked at CC. I still very much love you, continue to trust God for your salvation.

Bob you call this loving someone else, I call it insensitivity. Wow, unbelievable and unreasonable.

Quoting Bob Betts from Concerned Christians:

It is not a matter of if Libby is still saved, but a matter of whether or not she ever was. The above scriptures are plain to US. Libby has returned to the vomit of Joseph Smith, to wallow in the mire of Joseph Smith. If she is truly one of the elect God, and the Holy Spirit DOES dwell in her, then she will eventually be gripped with the same conviction she had a couple of months ago about Joseph Smith, and leave Mormonism. If she is not one of the elect of God, she will likely remain in Mormonism, and suffer the same consequences at the judgment, as the rest of you who die believing Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Consider that you don't get it, because an understanding of the scriptures is simply beyond your spiritual capabilities. They are spiritually discerned.

Bob Betts

03-06-2009, 06:21 AM

---To be precise, what there is, is accusations. Where the speculation part enters in, is where people speculate that the accusations are true.What I have presented to Libby is neither speculation, nor false accusations. What I have presented are undeniable, indisputable facts:

D&C 132:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
There is no doubt that Smith married the four espoused women named on lds.org, who each belonged to someone else, being what this verse calls adultery.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
Those four named on lds.org belonged to their first husbands, at the time that Smith married them.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil 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; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Of all the reasons that I have heard given by LDS for plural marriage, this is the only one I've never heard given by any LDS: "to multiply and replenish the earth." This being the actual "law of the priesthood" reason, then how was it not the obligation of Joseph Smith to mate with every one of his plural wives, like a bunch of rabbits? And, if he did not, then he was in violation of the commandment.

What have I stated that is disputable by any LDS?

In Matt. 7:15-20, Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets."

How will we know them? "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Then He asked a leading question: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

The answer is obviously 'no.' But, why would He ask?

Because, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

That's the clear cut truth which separates false prophets from true prophets.

And, just in case that isn't clear enough, Jesus removed all doubt about true prophets, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."

And, about false prophets, "neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. "

So, whatever good fruit that you LDS think that you can come up with about Joseph Smith, is irrelevant, because Jesus set the bar for "a good tree" being that he "cannot bring forth evil fruit."

Will any LDS dispute with me that the repeated, deliberate breaking of commandments would be the sort of evil fruit that Jesus was talking about?

Smith was at least guilty of repeated and deliberate adulteries, having married non-virgins, according to the so-called "law of the priesthood."

The Bible sure calls it adultery. Coveting thy neighbor's wife is also a sin. Nine of the first twelve plural wives of joseph Smith, were married women. See www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

Was that good fruit? Can a good prophet bring forth evil fruit? No, to both questions.

And, what befalls a prophet who brings forth evil fruit? Jesus said, "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Was not Joseph Smith hewn down? Even the LDS church (CoC) of Smith's widow (Emma) believes that Smith was "a fallen prophet" because of the evil fruit he brought forth in his latter years before he was hewn down.

So Jesus finished His definition of a false prophet, the way he began, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

By Joseph Smith's fruit, I know him. He clearly brought forth evil fruit with his multiple adulteries and covets of his neighbor's wives. He was one of the most clear cut false prophets of these latter days.

And, I still haven't touched on his false prophecies, except for the one which Whitmer told about in his own book.

Richard

03-06-2009, 08:13 AM

---To be precise, what there is, is accusations. Where the speculation part enters in, is where people speculate that the accusations are true.

:)Jeff, Fig, Libby, and all our LDS Friends. I suggest we not respond to Bob Betts since he has kicked several of us off Concerned Christians and put into effect a censure of our remarks and the ability to defend ourselves. He should be allowed all the rights WM gives us as posters, but to me he has proven him self as a dishonest Christian. I asked to defend my self at CC for email he posted that was private, to this date he has not removed it or allowed me to tell my side of the story. I feel he should be ignored.

Richard.;)

JDErickson

03-06-2009, 09:00 AM

:)Jeff, Fig, Libby, and all our LDS Friends. I suggest we not respond to Bob Betts since he has kicked several of us off Concerned Christians and put into effect a censure of our remarks and the ability to defend ourselves. He should be allowed all the rights WM gives us as posters, but to me he has proven him self as a dishonest Christian. I asked to defend my self at CC for email he posted that was private, to this date he has not removed it or allowed me to tell my side of the story. I feel he should be ignored.

Richard.;)

Somedays I wonder if I really want to be Christian or Mormon. With examples of both sides here Scientology is looking enticing.

Both sides grow up and start loving your neighbor as yourself.

Richard

03-06-2009, 09:06 AM

Somedays I wonder if I really want to be Christian or Mormon. With examples of both sides here Scientology is looking enticing.

Both sides grow up and start loving your neighbor as yourself.

Thanks, good advise, for your information, I did email Bob and stated we could be friends, no response, interesting.

Richard.

nrajeff

03-06-2009, 12:24 PM

I think your suggestion has merit, Richard--mostly for our sakes, not Bob's. You see, I can see myself telling him some things that I would probably later, at some point, regret having said.

Sara

03-06-2009, 12:41 PM

Bob you call this loving someone else, I call it insensitivity. Wow, unbelievable and unreasonable.

Quoting Bob Betts from Concerned Christians:

It is not a matter of if Libby is still saved, but a matter of whether or not she ever was. The above scriptures are plain to US. Libby has returned to the vomit of Joseph Smith, to wallow in the mire of Joseph Smith. If she is truly one of the elect God, and the Holy Spirit DOES dwell in her, then she will eventually be gripped with the same conviction she had a couple of months ago about Joseph Smith, and leave Mormonism. If she is not one of the elect of God, she will likely remain in Mormonism, and suffer the same consequences at the judgment, as the rest of you who die believing Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Consider that you don't get it, because an understanding of the scriptures is simply beyond your spiritual capabilities. They are spiritually discerned.

I've seen you write much worse things than that, Richard. And yet, you think your freedom of speech is more valid than his.

Richard

03-06-2009, 05:45 PM

I've seen you write much worse things than that, Richard. And yet, you think your freedom of speech is more valid than his.

Please quote me Sara. When I have been wrong I have apologized. Don't you think Bob should apologize for posting a private email, do you think I or Libby should have been embarr***ed for something which Libby did not want shared on CC. Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me. I asked Bob to allow me back on CC to defend myself, don't you think that someone who has nothing to hide should accommodate that request. After letting me give my side, he could than banish me again, no problem. So Sara, who is the one trying to get out the truth, me or Bob? What is he hiding from? By the way are you Anita?

Sara

03-06-2009, 09:02 PM

Please quote me Sara. When I have been wrong I have apologized. Don't you think Bob should apologize for posting a private email, do you think I or Libby should have been embarr***ed for something which Libby did not want shared on CC. Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me. I asked Bob to allow me back on CC to defend myself, don't you think that someone who has nothing to hide should accommodate that request. After letting me give my side, he could than banish me again, no problem. So Sara, who is the one trying to get out the truth, me or Bob? What is he hiding from? By the way are you Anita?

Post Script, Did I ever write anything like this, ---- Bob Betts, --- "Libby has returned to the vomit of Joseph Smith, to wallow in the mire of Joseph Smith. Nice try Sara, your defending a dishonest Christian man.

No, I'm not anita. But I've seen you write some very insulting things to people on other boards. I think it's disingenuous for you to try to pose as a victim.

Richard

03-06-2009, 09:16 PM

No, I'm not anita. But I've seen you write some very insulting things to people on other boards. I think it's disingenuous for you to try to pose as a victim.

[COLOR="Green"][B]Before you finish accusing me, please back up your claim or retract your statement. How would you like it if I accused you of being immoral, and knew it because you wrote it or posted it. Wow, wouldn't you want me to provide the quotes. I make my point Sara. Apologize or produce. I did email Bob and stated we could be friends, no response, interesting. You never replied to, "Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me."

Richard.

Sara

03-06-2009, 11:26 PM

[QUOTE=Richard;7670][COLOR="Green"][B]Before you finish accusing me, please back up your claim or retract your statement. How would you like it if I accused you of being immoral, and knew it because you wrote it or posted it. Wow, wouldn't you want me to provide the quotes. I make my point Sara. Apologize or produce. I did email Bob and stated we could be friends, no response, interesting. You never replied to, "Anytime you want me to share the emails I sent Bob, just to show you he is lying will be fine with me."

Richard.

(edit by mod)

Bob Betts

03-07-2009, 12:31 AM

Staying on topic...

Either Mormons need to state a belief that the frequent and deliberate violations of commandments, as Joseph Smith was clearly guilty of, is good fruit, or admit that Joseph Smith brought forth evil fruit, making him a false prophet, according to Jesus definition of one.

Jesus is the one who set the "prophet" bar so very high, saying "A good tree [prophet] CANNOT bring forth evil fruit." And, Joseph Smith brought forth LOTS of evil fruit, marrying non-virgins, against the so-called LDS "law of the priesthood," but not having normal marital relations with them in order to obey the "law of the priesthood" commandment "to multiply and replenish the earth."

I can see why Mormons would rather talk about me, than Joseph Smith's true character, which Christ exposed as a false prophet. But, I'm not supposed to be the subject of this thread...Smith is.

I can also understand why Mormons can't be honest about the real Joseph Smith, and honor Christ's command to "Beware of false prophets." It would mean the end of Mormonism. So, when Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits," they would rather take that out of Christ's context of how to identify false prophets, and apply it as a proof-text for the Mormon people being Christians, because of their good works.

Richard

03-07-2009, 09:01 AM

Quoting you is a little difficult when most of your posts look like this, just before you get suspended:

(edit by mod)

Sara a couple of questions, first what was your ID name before you came here or what did you go by on whatever site you seem to know me from.

I notice you got deleted, why don't you PM me with whatever quote you feel I was offensive about.

Who is Anita?

Richard.

Richard

03-07-2009, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE=Bob Betts;7685]Staying on topic...

Either Mormons need to state a belief that the frequent and deliberate violations of commandments, as Joseph Smith was clearly guilty of, is good fruit, or admit that Joseph Smith brought forth evil fruit, making him a false prophet, according to Jesus definition of one.

Interesting that Bob does not mention all the fruits he feels Joseph is guilty of. What is also interesting is that we have past Prophets in the Bible who were guilty of sin, yet they produced good fruits. Mosses openly disobeyed God, and was not allowed into the promised Land, Abraham and others had multiply wives which Bob loves to ignore.

Jesus is the one who set the "prophet" bar so very high, saying "A good tree [prophet] CANNOT bring forth evil fruit."

So what did Christ really state:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
come to his baptism, he said unto them,
O generation of vipers,
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
And think not to say within yourselves,
We have Abraham to our father:
for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones
to raise up children unto Abraham.
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees:
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Matt 3:7-10

And, Joseph Smith brought forth LOTS of evil fruit, marrying non-virgins, against the so-called LDS "law of the priesthood," but not having normal marital relations with them in order to obey the "law of the priesthood" commandment "to multiply and replenish the earth."

Jacob 2:30: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), eight types of family structures are described without any being condemned. Some involve concubines and multiple wives. For example, Esau had 3 wives, Jacob: 2, Ashur: 2, Elkanah: 2, Solomon: 700, Rehaboam: 3, and Abijah had 14. Ahab, Belshazzar, David, Gideon, Jeholachin, Jehoram, and Joash also had multiple wives. Solomon also had hundreds of concubines. Other Hebrew leaders in the Bible had concubines as well.

In the Doctrines and Covenants, Section 132, God ***igns a positive value to polygamy. This revelation was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and recorded on 1843-JUL-12:
3: "...all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."

4: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye ****ed; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

6: "...he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be ****ed...."
God reviews the many figures in the Hebrew scriptures who had concubines and/or were involved in plural marriages: Abraham, David, Solomon, Moses and many others.
God commands Joseph Smith's wife, Emma, to follow this commandment or be destroyed.
God introduces the "law of the priesthood": that a man can, with the approval of his first wife, marry one or more other women without committing adultery "...for they belong to him and they are given onto him...":

61: "....if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."
62: "And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Genesis 16:1-4: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived..." (King James Version)

A person must embrace plural marriage as a divine and holy principle in order to receive eternal life. President John Taylor noted:

"Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221)

I am not aware of any member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who has ever said anything contradicting President Taylor's words. However, while the Lord desires us to accept the doctrine of plural marriage, he does not always desire his people to actually practice it. For example, the Book of Mormon peoples were specifically forbidden to practice plural marriage. (Jacob 2). Therefore, we know that plural marriage is not an ordinance like baptism that must be practiced in mortality to be saved. However, it is a celestial doctrine, and those whose hearts are not pure enough to accept the doctrine are not pure enough to dwell in the celestial kingdom as an exalted being.

Those who break the commandments of God cannot be saved. Since there are times when the Lord commands his people not to enter into plural marriage (e.g., Book of Mormon times; today), we know that there are times when we will be ****ed for practicing it, even though the doctrine is eternal. Likewise, since there are times when the Lord commands his people to practice plural marriage (e.g., Abraham's time; 1830's-1904), we know that there are times when we will be ****ed for not practicing it. The key to salvation on this matter is to always believe and espouse the principles, but only practice it at the command of the Lord, through his appointed prophets.
by W. John Walsh

I can see why Mormons would rather talk about me, than Joseph Smith's true character, which Christ exposed as a false prophet. But, I'm not supposed to be the subject of this thread...Smith is.

Well I guess you must have taken me off ignore, Bob Betts. Maybe you can share with us where Christ exposed Joseph as a false Prophet?

I can also understand why Mormons can't be honest about the real Joseph Smith, and honor Christ's command to "Beware of false prophets." It would mean the end of Mormonism. So, when Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits," they would rather take that out of Christ's context of how to identify false prophets, and apply it as a proof-text for the Mormon people being Christians, because of their good works.

I also can't understand why Bob Betts feels that we live in a day and age when Prophets are not needed. It is obvious by the Scriptures that someone must be the spokes person for God, and have the keys of the Kingdom whenever acting in the name of God. Confusion reins on the earth, and we see no one at the helm of the Evangelical Movement, there is no unity of Faith and they deny the power of God, (Priesthood), and essential ordinances that are required to enter back into the Kingdom of God. Hence we Preach, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost as was taught in NT times.

Richard.

Sara

03-07-2009, 12:53 PM

Sara a couple of questions, first what was your ID name before you came here or what did you go by on whatever site you seem to know me from.

I notice you got deleted, why don't you PM me with whatever quote you feel I was offensive about.

Who is Anita?

Richard.

I've always been Sara.

My post said that it was difficult to quote you because your posts always just read "edited by mod," right before you were suspended.

Richard

03-07-2009, 03:10 PM

I've always been Sara.

My post said that it was difficult to quote you because your posts always just read "edited by mod," right before you were suspended.

Most likely Sara, since you are so quick to bare false witness, I was deleted because I quoted from a unauthorized source which is against the rules at CARM. I also got deleted and booted twice when the Quote was from a CARM member who used uncivil language that I got blamed for, yet it was not me who said anything wrong. Just by using his or her reply, I got booted, interesting administrator they have at CARM.

Richard.

Post Script, so what was your ID name at CARM?

Sara

03-07-2009, 08:22 PM

Most likely Sara, since you are so quick to bare false witness, I was deleted because I quoted from a unauthorized source which is against the rules at CARM. I also got deleted and booted twice when the Quote was from a CARM member who used uncivil language that I got blamed for, yet it was not me who said anything wrong. Just by using his or her reply, I got booted, interesting administrator they have at CARM.

Richard.

Post Script, so what was your ID name at CARM?

No, it's never your fault, is it Richard.

Richard

03-07-2009, 10:50 PM

No, it's never your fault, is it Richard.

Again you must have missed the many times I have apologized Sara. I apologized when I used different names, I was ashamed of my deception, I told Bob we could still be friends, so what do you mean It is always my fault Sara? Not once have I received a sorry, or an apology.

Are you deflecting or do you have a Id name at CARM. Just tell me no, if you want to keep it a secret.

R.

Libby

03-09-2009, 12:15 AM

Hi Libby. Nice to see you around.

Sad day to hear the news of your return to Mormonism but I know God works in strange ways. Best wishes to you and your family. I'll be praying for you.

Hi JD...thank you for the good wishes. Nice to "see" you again. Hope all is well with you and your family.

Libby

03-09-2009, 12:25 AM

Hi Libby, I hope you've forgiven me, as I asked at CC. I still very much love you, continue to trust God for your salvation.

Anita told me that some of the old regulars are posting here, and invited me to join in. So, here I am.

For the record, I put Richard on my ignore list, as soon as I registered here. After what I have witnessed in the initial private e-mails he sent me that I read, I'm convinced that he is possessed of a demon. Anita informed me that he's been back-biting me, here. So, I don't want to hear or respond to anything he says to or about me.

Now, I observed your wording about your view of the evidence regarding Joseph Smith's character and behavior. You said that you believe that many of the opinions about him are wrong. That leaves the door wide open, that you could believe that some of the opinions are not just opinions, but are facts which you aren't prepared to defend.

So, are you of the opinion that Joseph Smith did not marry any married woman? On the list of Smith's wives at LDS.org, four of those married women are listed as his wives. 1. Zina Huntington Jacobs, married to Henry Jacobs at the time Smith married her; 2. Precendia Huntington Buell, married to Norman Buell at the time Smith married her; 3. Sylvia Sessions Lyon, married to Windsor Lyon at the time that Smith married her; 4. Mary Rollins Lightner, married to Adam Lightner at the time that Smith married her.

So, you cannot deny that even your "church" acknowledges that he married four non-virgins, which is in violation of D&C 132:61. If he married virgins, it was adultery. This is neither opinion nor conjecture. This is fact.

Therefore, your ***essment that "there is no proof that Joseph was involved in any sexual sin whatsoever," is only true if he had no sex with them. But, it's still adultery to marry a non-virgin and/or someone espoused to another, according to D&C 132:61, which is what Smith did.

But, Mormons will argue, that he didn't have sex with any of them, so it doesn't matter. Yet, D&C 132:63 states that the reason for God to command plural marriage of Smith was "to multiply and replenish the earth." Therefore, if Smith did NOT have sexual relations with ALL of his plural wives, in order to multiply and replenish the earth, then every wife he didn't have sexual relations with was a violation of the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Multiply that violation of withholding sexual relations, for the purpose of having children, and you have at least 33 violations of the law of the priesthood, D&C 132:63, depending on how many times he SHOULD have reasonably had sexual relations with all of his wives, to attempt to bare children.

Breaking a commandment of God, a minimum of 33 times. Would that alone, not fall under the category of evil fruit, according to Jesus' teaching about false prophets in Matt. 7:18? Add to that, marrying other men's wives. Smith was an evil man, and I haven't even gotten started on his dozens of false prophecies, one of which was exposed by David Whitmer. A prophecy which didn't come to p***, and is strangely absent from the D&C. Cover up?

Bob, I'm going to answer this here, because what I have to say about all of this, is pretty brief.

I don't dispute the facts that Joseph was sealed to already married women or any of the other sealings. What I am seeing differently, now, is the "probable" relationship he actually had with these women. (He was also sealed to some men, if you'll recall). First of all, I do believe he was acting under God's authority, in implementing this sealing power. It seems he was trying to establish an eternal bond between himself and faithful members of the church. He may not have had a clear idea of how sealing was going to work (at least, not the nitty-gritty details), so that had to be worked out through future prophets.

I don't believe he had marital relations with any of these women, simply because there are no known offspring...and with that many wives, I would think there would have surely been some children. I believe these were sealings for eternity, but not for "time"...which is why the already married women remained with their current husbands.

Hope that helps to clarify my position on this.

Mesenja

03-09-2009, 04:52 AM

Did God ALLOW polygamy?? Yes. Did He COMMAND it? NO!! Regardless,it's clear from scripture that He created woman for man...NOT women for man. :rolleyes:

You haven't shown this from scripture.

nrajeff

03-09-2009, 06:44 AM

Bob Betts

03-11-2009, 02:01 AM

Bob, I'm going to answer this here, because what I have to say about all of this, is pretty brief.

I don't dispute the facts that Joseph was sealed to already married women or any of the other sealings. What I am seeing differently, now, is the "probable" relationship he actually had with these women. This is too important to be speculating about, Libby. And I have not raised any issue (though I have them) with regard to Smith's "sealings." The issue is with whom he sealed himself. Surely you can see from the reading of verses 61 and 63, that he was not allowed to marry any women who were espoused to another. They HAD to be virgins, Libby:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

Is there ANY question about "God's" commandment in these two verses? As long as Smith espoused virgins, and not anyone who was espoused to another, Smith was justified, and could note guilty of adultery. It states nothing about being espoused to non-virgins, as long as it's only for eternity, as opposed to time.

But, you did not address these points of mine, as if they were either invisible, or it was deliberate.

But, you also have ignored my lengthy explanation regarding verse 63: But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil 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; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

There's the stated reason (highlighted) for plural marriage: "to multiply and replenish the earth." Everyone knows, that means to procreate and have children. As I stated in my previous posts, if Smith did NOT have sexual relations with all of his wives, "espoused to another" or not, than he was in violation of God's alleged "law of the priesthood."

But, you did not even address this point, either.

(He was also sealed to some men, if you'll recall). This is not addressed in the "law of the priesthood," and is irrelevant to any of the points I have made.

First of all, I do believe he was acting under God's authority, in implementing this sealing power. This is something else I have not questioned, in any of my arguments. Nor is it relevant to any of them.

It seems he was trying to establish an eternal bond between himself and faithful members of the church. He may not have had a clear idea of how sealing was going to work (at least, not the nitty-gritty details), so that had to be worked out through future prophets.It seems...? He may...? How much of what you believe about Joseph Smith is founded on speculation?

I have presented the facts of the so-called "law of the priesthood," combined with the facts of Smith's history, to conclude the obvious. He broke all the rules. No Mormon can refute my conclusions. And, with all due respect, Libby, all you've present is your heart-felt belief, founded on nothing more than positive thinking, and fact-less speculation.

I don't believe he had marital relations with any of these women, simply because there are no known offspring...and with that many wives, I would think there would have surely been some children. Well, I can't remember the name of the daughter who heard her mother's deathbed admission, that she (the daughter) was the actual daughter of Joseph Smith. So, there is testimony that was given to BYU, I believe in the '20s.

But, that's neither here nor there. Because, as I've already stated, if Smith did NOT have sexual relations with all of his wives, "espoused to another" or not, than he was in violation of God's alleged "law of the priesthood." It's right there in verse 63. "Multiply and replenish the earth." What possible argument could you give in re****al?

I believe these were sealings for eternity, but not for "time"...which is why the already married women remained with their current husbands.Then, you are deliberately dismissing the stated commandment in verse 63, "to multiply and replenish the earth." And, you are ***uming such eternal sealings, on zero fact and 100% speculation. You appear to WANT to believe the best about Joseph Smith, so you are ignoring the facts of the commands and commandment of "the law of the priesthood."

Hope that helps to clarify my position on this.Here's the problem with your response, Libby. You didn't address "the law of the priesthood," verses 61-63, in the least, which I went into great length to explain why Smith was a frequent and deliberate violator of the commandment, allegedly given by God.

You've merely stated what you believe, and speculated what "may" have been going on with Joseph. But, what you state that you believe and speculate on, does not square with the clearly "decreed" (allegedly by God) expectations of what Smith was, and was not allowed to do with respect to the "law of the priesthood" (plural marriage).

Please notice that, once again, no Mormon has come forth to try to refute anything I have stated in any of my posts on this topic. I'm getting no resistance to my arguments. You have not actually presented any of your own. But, merely belief and speculation.

If God was the author of the "law of the priesthood," and in verse 61 He obviously and clearly stated that Smith was to only marry virgins, and all of none of you Mormons agree that he married women who were espoused to another, then you are all admitting that Smith violated God's command. Thus, since those married women were not virgins, you cannot justify Joseph Smith, and honestly say that Smith was compliant with the commandment of God. It's simply not possible for you to make Smith's deliberate violations of the "law of the priesthood," NOT deliberate violations of the "law of the priesthood."

Now, going by the facts of verses 61-63, combined with all our understanding that Smith married other men's wives when he wasn't supposed to, and when he was supposed to multiply and replenish the earth by all of his wives, but you all think that he did NOT have sexual relations with at them, and setting aside your baseless speculations, which contradict the facts of verses 61-63, you tell me where I'm wrong about anything I've presented.

Richard

03-11-2009, 08:10 AM

Sexual Relations and Polyandry

The above table shows that about one-fourth of Joseph's wives were married women, which Mormon historians have characterized as "polyandry" in a general sense. In Sacred Loneliness, however, uses the term specifically for a woman's marriage to more than one husband, with full physical intimacy. This is also the connotation of the standard definition: "having more than one husband or male mate at one time."13 However, polyandry applies to Joseph Smith in a more limited sense, for with one exception, there is no reliable information on sexual relations after his being sealed to a married woman. In these cases, we simply know that an eternal marriage to Joseph was performed with the continuation of the temporal marriage to an existing husband. By 1846, most of these husbands accepted the eternal sealing to the Prophet. Compton overinterprets the phrase time and eternity, which some married women said was used in their sealings to Joseph Smith. The sealings established an eternal relationship with the Prophet from that point, but time did not necessarily imply present marital relations with two men. A verbal argument to that effect lacks substance. Polyandry should indicate a category of Joseph's sealings to some married women, without implying simultaneous sexual partners.

In the discussion of Compton's prologue, we subtracted four wives for lack of documentation. Three of these were married women, which means that Joseph Smith was sealed to eight women with living husbands. In Sacred Loneliness debunks the idea that these marriages came about because husbands did not believe or were unworthy of a celestial sealing (see p. 16). But this reflects some tendency of the book toward either-or thinking, since individualized reasons for plurality probably operate in these married cases. These include two nonmember husbands, plus Presendia Huntington's husband, Norman Buell, whose bitterness against the church is evident, even in Compton's somewhat apologetic treatment. The author is confident that Windsor Lyon, husband of Sylvia Sessions, was in full fellowship at the time of her sealing to the Prophet in early 1842, but his evidence that Lyon was friendly to the Prophet does not establish faith and activity. Windsor was excommunicated in late 1842 and rebaptized in early 1846. His behavior and at***ude causing excommunication no doubt preceded the official action. Many "unequally yoked" Mormon women have faith in an eternal relationship with a worthy husband, and several of the Prophet's sealings to married women fit that situation.

That leaves four cases in which the Prophet married women whose husbands were faithful Mormons and remained so afterward. These marriages have been explained by various doctrinal speculations, which Compton surveys. Was there a spiritual basis for Joseph Smith's selection of certain married women? That issue is virtually lost in the historical probings of this long study, though Compton touches on religious roots of polygamy in quoting the Prophet's conversations with Mary Elizabeth Lightner: "Joseph said I was his before I came here" (quoted on pp. 19, 212). The published revelation on plural marriage records that certain women "have been given unto my servant Joseph" (D&C 132:52). After some chapters, readers may wonder, "Did God inspire or lead Joseph to be sealed to women who were already married?" The most direct response is "Yes." As believing Latter-day Saints and research historians, we interpret Joseph Smith's involvement with the introduction of plural (celestial) marriage as being firmly grounded in both moral and inspired eternal principles. This conclusion is based on a consistent picture in early documents, including the faithful lives and personal revelations of the first participants, and their remarkable perseverance in overcoming obstacles to accepting and living this celestial principle of marriage.

What is left to our imaginations, and Compton's speculations, is the nature of these "polyandrous" marriages. Were these unions simply dynastic sealings—the practice of sealing women to certain senior priesthood leaders for eternity only, with little or no temporal relationship—or were they relationships including intimacy and offspring? Compton points to about a half-dozen marriages to single women where physical intimacy is documented. But arguing parallels does not establish such relationships. There is a logical chasm between single and married sealings, and, for the latter, there is no responsible report of sexual intercourse except for Sylvia Sessions Lyon. In 1915, her daughter, Josephine Lyon Fisher, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church" (quoted on p. 183). The Fisher document is somewhat supported by Angus Cannon's recollection of hearing that Patty Sessions said the Prophet fathered Sylvia's child (see p. 637). Compton acknowledges Sylvia may have meant that her 1844 child was conceived during Windsor's four years out of the church, from 1842 to 1846 (see p. 183). Though he thinks it "unlikely" that Sylvia denied her husband cohabitation during this period (p. 183), that is a serious possibility. This is implied in the family tradition of her daughter some three decades later.

Reliable evidence indicates that Joseph Smith fathered some children through his plural marriages with single women, but that evidence does not necessarily support intimacy with polyandrous wives. Compton's own discussion of "Sexuality in Joseph Smith's Plural Marriages" (pp. 12—15) is muddled. He generalizes without specifying which category (single, widowed, divorced, separated, married) of plural wives supposedly took part in this most private aspect of plural marriage. For example, Compton concludes this discussion: "Though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for this. . . . And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations" (p. 15). Which marriages? Compton does not specify or quantify or document his generalized conclusion that "in a significant number" of these plural marriages Joseph Smith had sexual contact with his partner. If by "significant" Compton implies that a majority of these marriages had what he terms the "sexual dimension," his statement is not supported by the data he presents. But Compton several times extrapolates with unwarranted confidence, as in the case of Zina Huntington Jacobs: "Nothing specific is known about sexuality in their marriage, though judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included" (p. 82). This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented.
The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives
Richard Lloyd Anderson, and Scott H. Faulring

Libby

03-11-2009, 01:17 PM

This is too important to be speculating about, Libby. And I have not raised any issue (though I have them) with regard to Smith's "sealings." The issue is with whom he sealed himself. Surely you can see from the reading of verses 61 and 63, that he was not allowed to marry any women who were espoused to another. They HAD to be virgins, Libby:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

Is there ANY question about "God's" commandment in these two verses? As long as Smith espoused virgins, and not anyone who was espoused to another, Smith was justified, and could note guilty of adultery. It states nothing about being espoused to non-virgins, as long as it's only for eternity, as opposed to time.

But, you did not address these points of mine, as if they were either invisible, or it was deliberate.

Well, I didn't address it, because I don't really understand it, yet. I think perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on the word "virgin". I read that several times and in context and I see no commandment to marry only virgins. I see what is, perhaps, an example of how to enter into plural marriage. But, we know from history that there were many reasons for entering into plural marriage...not just what is stated specifically in the above verses. (Actually, I need to add, there is really only ONE reason for entering plural marriage, and that was to satisfy God's commandment - but temporal reasons, like poverty due to lose of a husband, etc, did enter the equation)..

It seems...? He may...? How much of what you believe about Joseph Smith is founded on speculation?

Probably about as much as what you, yourself, know. You have to admit, much of the reasoning behind Joseph's marriages (intent, purpose, actual relationships with these women) is pure speculation, from both critics and faithful Latter-day Saints..

I have presented the facts of the so-called "law of the priesthood," combined with the facts of Smith's history, to conclude the obvious. He broke all the rules. No Mormon can refute my conclusions. And, with all due respect, Libby, all you've present is your heart-felt belief, founded on nothing more than positive thinking, and fact-less speculation.

I would suggest that we don't have enough information to come to that kind of conclusion. As I said above, there were many reasons for plural marriage and many different kinds of relationships, not all of which were physical or intended for this life, but rather for the eternities. I have faith that God understood what Joseph was doing and why...and that he was, indeed, following God's direction.

Well, I can't remember the name of the daughter who heard her mother's deathbed admission, that she (the daughter) was the actual daughter of Joseph Smith. So, there is testimony that was given to BYU, I believe in the '20s.

Hasn't it been established, through DNA testing, that the woman was not his daughter? Or, could be, that it was simply inconclusive...I can't recall off the top of my head.

But, that's neither here nor there. Because, as I've already stated, if Smith did NOT have sexual relations with all of his wives, "espoused to another" or not, than he was in violation of God's alleged "law of the priesthood." It's right there in verse 63. "Multiply and replenish the earth." What possible argument could you give in re****al?

My re****al would be that "multiply and replenish" (in this mortal lifetime) was not the only reason for plural marriage.

Then, you are deliberately dismissing the stated commandment in verse 63, "to multiply and replenish the earth." And, you are ***uming such eternal sealings, on zero fact and 100% speculation. You appear to WANT to believe the best about Joseph Smith, so you are ignoring the facts of the commands and commandment of "the law of the priesthood."

I do want to believe the best, because I believe Joseph was a prophet, based on a larger picture, not just negatives (or positives) here and there. I know there is a much bigger picture of Joseph that the critics don't, usually, see or present. Focus can make a huge difference in what kind of story you see and tell about this man (or any man, for that matter)..

(And I know this response will not satisfy you, but it does satisfy me)

Richard

03-11-2009, 04:35 PM

Libby, Bob has me on ignore, so what I say does not really make any difference. I posted most of that for you to read. Libby, Bob is not going to change his mind, he is so focused on the forest, he cannot see clearly the beautiful trees that can be found in the Latter day Scriptures. Please be careful, Bob can be convincing, but the history during the time of Joseph Smith and the start of our Church is so sketchy and a lot was not written down.
Originally when the members went out to preach, they never even mentioned the first vision, they taught from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and many people were converted just by this alone.

Bob come here to rattle the cage, because he has no one at CC to debate with him anymore, all the good people have been banned, some of my favorites were Jeff, Aussie, Bev, and now with Fig just about the only one left, we find it probably frustrating to have no one else except Mr. T who is way out in left psycho Field. Don't take that wrong, I really did like Mr. T, Fred. But I just could not relate to where he was coming from. Disney is also a good guy.

Friend, Richard.

Mesenja

03-11-2009, 05:33 PM

I don't give a flip what your "screed" tells you,messdude. But BIBLICALLY, one can NOT "achieve" being "born again". It's solely the work of the HOLY SPIRIT.

Maybe you should as then you would have a shred of validity in what you say about it.

You've never demonstrated error on my part,messy. Mormonism's soteriology is:faith + WORKS. :eek:

I have as much likelihood of you showing me the common courtesy of using my forum name as there is of you ever admitting to being wrong.

No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times messy with your misunderstanding of "free will":In your scenario,one chooses to be good one day,and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your multi-tiered "heavens"!! :eek:

The more you talk the sillier you become. This is not what we believe at all.

Libby

03-11-2009, 05:54 PM

Richard, I did mean to thank you for the information that you put up.

I wouldn't want to speculate in the negative, as to why Bob is here. I'm sure he is here for the same reason the rest of us are here...to support a particular viewpoint. I do respect Bob and consider him a friend, even if we don't agree on anything.

Jill

03-11-2009, 11:09 PM

Libby, you said:

I do want to believe the best, because I believe Joseph was a prophet, based on a larger picture, not just negatives (or positives) here and there. I know there is a much bigger picture of Joseph that the critics don't, usually, see or present. Focus can make a huge difference in what kind of story you see and tell about this man (or any man, for that matter)..

So can history, Libby. It's from history that we learn the character of Joseph Smith Jr.

Brodie, Fawn. No Man Knows My History.

Fawn Brodie is neither Christian nor Mormon--she's a researcher and biographer. Perhaps your "bigger picture" should include her biography on Joseph Smith--a detailed, documented bio that the Mormon Church has not been able to disprove for more than 30 years.

Joseph Smith was a convicted money-digger.

He admitted to using a "peepstone" to earn a living but decided he couldn't make much money at it.

He married other men's wives. Do you believe God told him to do this?

All these things speak to character--you cannot brush them aside and say, "Oh well . . . that's not the whole story."

Women suffered terribly from the "revelation" of plural marriage--have you read any of their stories?

Try Mary V. Ettie Smith, Fifteen Years Among the Mormons, 1859. She was a close friend of Brigham Young's family.

Libby

03-11-2009, 11:54 PM

Jill..yes, I'm aware of a lot of the history. That's a large part of what took me out of the church. Who was it that said, "I don't have a testimony of church history"?

He married other men's wives. Do you believe God told him to do this?

I think, perhaps, he did, yes. I gave my opinion about this in an earlier post. This was something that really bothered me, early on, but I was going from the ***umption made mostly by LDS critics that JS actually had marital relationships with these women. I think, now, that's it's highly possible that he didn't and that the sealings were for eternity, but not for "time"...and that most of these women stayed with their husbands. (I think there were only four incidences of this type of sealing)

I'm sure polygamy was a hardship in many ways for women in particular.

Bob Betts

03-12-2009, 08:36 AM

Again, D&C 132:61-63 is allegedly the word from God about the specifics of the practice of plural marriage. It is obviously a defense of Smith's practice of it. I appeal to you on behalf of basic English, to pay better attention to the wording of it:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil 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; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

Well, I didn't address it, because I don't really understand it, yet. I think perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on the word "virgin". You "don't understand it." You "think." More fact-less base-less speculation.

God (allegedly) uses the word "virgin(s)" four times in three verses, and you think I'M putting too much emphasis on the word "virgin"? Think about that? GOD (allegedly) used the word "virgin(s)" FOUR times in THREE verses. GOD (allegedly) initiated the emphasis of the word, not me.

I read that several times and in context and I see no commandment to marry only virgins. I've pointed things out in LDS scriptures, to Mormons and ex-Mormons, who have claimed to have read those things many times before, only to have them tell me, "Wow, I didn't see THAT, before." Including you.

Pay attrention to the "if, then" clauses, "...as pertaining to the LAW of the priesthood." The LAW would be a commandment of God.

"IF any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, THEN is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

What is GOD'S stated condition for espousing another, and being justified of not commiting adultery?
Answer: "They ARE VIRGINS and have VOWED TO NO OTHER MAN."

I see what is, perhaps, an example of how to enter into plural marriage. "perhaps, an example"? Libby, GOD is (allegedly) stating "THE LAW of the priesthood." In verse 63, GOD clearly defined "to multiply and replenish the earth," as "according to my COMMANDMENT."

There's no "perhaps." There's no "example."

"And IF he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, [THEN]he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

What is GOD'S stated condition for Smith being innocent of adultery, thus being justified?
Answer: "They belong to him."

63 "But IF one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, [THEN"she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;"

Do you seriously believe that God's threat of destruction of the virgins, who disobey the LAW (commandment) of the priesthood, would be comforted by your speculation that that this "is, PERHAPS, AN EXAMPLE of how to enter into plural marriage," as you said?

But, we know from history that there were many reasons for entering into plural marriage...not just what is stated specifically in the above verses. We know what LDS leadership has claimed were other reasons. But, I've already proven (at the CC site) that LDS leadership is deliberately dishonest, falsely portraying Smith as a faithful monogamous husband, a pacifist, and a friend of colored people, in the Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration movie at VCs.

But, in verse 63 God (allegedly) specifies the reason as "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment." So, despite whatever other reasons your 'church' gives, the only one God gives, is, "according to His commandment." And, that would be the only reason that matters, for me to demonstrate that Smith frequently and deliberately violated the "commandment" if he did NOT have sexual realtions with every one of his wives, "to multiply and replenish the earth."

(Actually, I need to add, there is really only ONE reason for entering plural marriage, and that was to satisfy God's commandment - but temporal reasons, like poverty due to lose of a husband, etc, did enter the equation)..The ONLY reason that counts, is the one God gives as His commandment, "to multiply and replenish the earth." If he didnt try to do so, with all of his wives, then he sinned against God's commandment.

It seems...? He may...? How much of what you believe about Joseph Smith is founded on speculation?
Probably about as much as what you, yourself, know. You have to admit, much of the reasoning behind Joseph's marriages (intent, purpose, actual relationships with these women) is pure speculation, from both critics and faithful Latter-day Saints..There are only three things I need to know, to prove that Smith was a frequent, deliberate violator of the "law of the priesthood", since there is no doubt that he knew the rules of the "law." He recorded them.

1. Smith was to only marry virgins. That is clearly stated in the "law."

2. Smith married non-virgins.

3. Mormons claim that Smith didn't have sexual relations with any of his plural wives, virgin or married.

Here's what I know, which proves my accusations against Smith.

1. No mormon is denyng that Smith married other men's wives. Therefore, there is no question that he clearly disobeyed the "law" to marry virgins, who are espoused to no other, so as to be justified.

2. If, as Mormons claim, Smith did not have sexual relations with any of his plural wives, then he disobeyed the "law" of plural wifery, "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment."

I would suggest that we don't have enough information to come to that kind of conclusion. Absolutely wrong. I have all the proof I need, based on the wording of your above scriptures, and the undenied fact of Smith's history of marrying other men's wives.

As I said above, there were many reasons for plural marriage and many different kinds of relationships, not all of which were physical or intended for this life, but rather for the eternities. None of which matters, except God's (alleged) specfications of the "law," clearly spelled out in verses 61-63.

I have faith that God understood what Joseph was doing and why...I do, too.

and that he was, indeed, following God's direction.Impossible. Verses 61-63 condemn Smith's plural wife practices, based on the clearly defined wording, and your admission of his marriage to non-virgins, who were each espoused to another.

Hasn't it been established, through DNA testing, that the woman was not his daughter? Or, could be, that it was simply inconclusive...I can't recall off the top of my head. Irrelevant. Smith was SUPPOSED :to multiply and replenish the earth by them. That was God's clearly stted purpose.

My re****al would be that "multiply and replenish" (in this mortal lifetime) was not the only reason for plural marriage.It doesn't matter. It being God's ONLY stated reason, is what makes Smith guilty of disobeying, if you are going to insist that he didn't have sexual relations with any of his wives. Because, Smith was SUPPOSED "to mutiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment." You could have a hundred other reasons given by men, but none of them matters, except God's reason in verse 63.

I do want to believe the best, because I believe Joseph was a prophet, based on a larger picture, not just negatives (or positives) here and there. I know there is a much bigger picture of Joseph that the critics don't, usually, see or present. Focus can make a huge difference in what kind of story you see and tell about this man (or any man, for that matter)..And, you have just clearly stated the reason for your downfall. You want to believe the best, rather than believe the truth. The truth is staring you in the face, in verses 61-63, and your acknowledgement that he married women who were espoused to another.

(And I know this response will not satisfy you, but it does satisfy me)Truth satisfies me. And, Jesus is all about the truth. You are ignoring it, because you "want to believe the best," rather than believe the truth. No your response does not satisfy, because it is not based on the truth of the known facts, as I have presented them from your own scriptures, and your admission about Smith's marriages to those espoused to another, in disobedience to the "law of the priesthood."

Gotta run. sorry if there are typos. Love ya, Libby.

Libby

03-13-2009, 10:08 PM

Again, D&C 132:61-63 is allegedly the word from God about the specifics of the practice of plural marriage. It is obviously a defense of Smith's practice of it. I appeal to you on behalf of basic English, to pay better attention to the wording of it:

You "don't understand it." You "think." More fact-less base-less speculation.

God (allegedly) uses the word "virgin(s)" four times in three verses, and you think I'M putting too much emphasis on the word "virgin"? Think about that? GOD (allegedly) used the word "virgin(s)" FOUR times in THREE verses. GOD (allegedly) initiated the emphasis of the word, not me.

I've pointed things out in LDS scriptures, to Mormons and ex-Mormons, who have claimed to have read those things many times before, only to have them tell me, "Wow, I didn't see THAT, before." Including you.

Pay attrention to the "if, then" clauses, "...as pertaining to the LAW of the priesthood." The LAW would be a commandment of God.

"IF any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, THEN is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

What is GOD'S stated condition for espousing another, and being justified of not commiting adultery?
Answer: "They ARE VIRGINS and have VOWED TO NO OTHER MAN."

"perhaps, an example"? Libby, GOD is (allegedly) stating "THE LAW of the priesthood." In verse 63, GOD clearly defined "to multiply and replenish the earth," as "according to my COMMANDMENT."

There's no "perhaps." There's no "example."

"And IF he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, [THEN]he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

What is GOD'S stated condition for Smith being innocent of adultery, thus being justified?
Answer: "They belong to him."

63 "But IF one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, [THEN"she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;"

Do you seriously believe that God's threat of destruction of the virgins, who disobey the LAW (commandment) of the priesthood, would be comforted by your speculation that that this "is, PERHAPS, AN EXAMPLE of how to enter into plural marriage," as you said?

We know what LDS leadership has claimed were other reasons. But, I've already proven (at the CC site) that LDS leadership is deliberately dishonest, falsely portraying Smith as a faithful monogamous husband, a pacifist, and a friend of colored people, in the Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration movie at VCs.

But, in verse 63 God (allegedly) specifies the reason as "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment." So, despite whatever other reasons your 'church' gives, the only one God gives, is, "according to His commandment." And, that would be the only reason that matters, for me to demonstrate that Smith frequently and deliberately violated the "commandment" if he did NOT have sexual realtions with every one of his wives, "to multiply and replenish the earth."

The ONLY reason that counts, is the one God gives as His commandment, "to multiply and replenish the earth." If he didnt try to do so, with all of his wives, then he sinned against God's commandment.

There are only three things I need to know, to prove that Smith was a frequent, deliberate violator of the "law of the priesthood", since there is no doubt that he knew the rules of the "law." He recorded them.

1. Smith was to only marry virgins. That is clearly stated in the "law."

2. Smith married non-virgins.

3. Mormons claim that Smith didn't have sexual relations with any of his plural wives, virgin or married.

Here's what I know, which proves my accusations against Smith.

1. No mormon is denyng that Smith married other men's wives. Therefore, there is no question that he clearly disobeyed the "law" to marry virgins, who are espoused to no other, so as to be justified.

2. If, as Mormons claim, Smith did not have sexual relations with any of his plural wives, then he disobeyed the "law" of plural wifery, "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment."

Absolutely wrong. I have all the proof I need, based on the wording of your above scriptures, and the undenied fact of Smith's history of marrying other men's wives.

None of which matters, except God's (alleged) specfications of the "law," clearly spelled out in verses 61-63.

I do, too.

Impossible. Verses 61-63 condemn Smith's plural wife practices, based on the clearly defined wording, and your admission of his marriage to non-virgins, who were each espoused to another.

Irrelevant. Smith was SUPPOSED :to multiply and replenish the earth by them. That was God's clearly stted purpose.

It doesn't matter. It being God's ONLY stated reason, is what makes Smith guilty of disobeying, if you are going to insist that he didn't have sexual relations with any of his wives. Because, Smith was SUPPOSED "to mutiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment." You could have a hundred other reasons given by men, but none of them matters, except God's reason in verse 63.

And, you have just clearly stated the reason for your downfall. You want to believe the best, rather than believe the truth. The truth is staring you in the face, in verses 61-63, and your acknowledgement that he married women who were espoused to another.

Truth satisfies me. And, Jesus is all about the truth. You are ignoring it, because you "want to believe the best," rather than believe the truth. No your response does not satisfy, because it is not based on the truth of the known facts, as I have presented them from your own scriptures, and your admission about Smith's marriages to those espoused to another, in disobedience to the "law of the priesthood."

Gotta run. sorry if there are typos. Love ya, Libby.

Hi Bob...I've been out of town (in Arizona, actually :) - Lake Havasu). Just got back this afternoon.

I'm going to "bottom lines" in my response, because I humbly submit that I am not ever going to "out argue" you on this..or probably anything else.. (partly, because you have already decided what it means..and that Joseph Smith is not a prophet). Just as you claim that LDS create their own Joseph Smith with only positive aspects, I believe that is what the critics do, only in the reverse. In this example, yes, you have some "facts" that you believe you are interpreting correctly (and Joseph MUST be guilty, based on these couple of verses), but if you look at the bigger picture, I think you will see that none of the prophets married only virgins, so that must not be how THEY were interpreting that scripture. I know that 'virgin only marriages' were not practiced (and doesn't even sound very practical), so I know that you are not understanding or seeing the bigger picture. That is not ME ignoring "facts", but rather YOU ignoring some of the facts and honing in on this very narrow view that you somehow believe is the whole "truth" of it. You are coming from unbelief, so that is all you're seeing. Debating someone who has very strong opinions about the LDS church (on either side) is kind of like arguing with a brick wall. LDS are often accused of wearing blinders...but, I think that is probably just as true for many of the critics.

I believe in Jesus Christ and I agree with you that he is the only truth with which we should concern ourselves...and if this is his church...well, we better pay attention, because it's all about him.

Fig-bearing Thistle

03-13-2009, 10:16 PM

Hi Bob...I've been out of town (in Arizona, actually :) - Lake Havasu). Just got back this afternoon.

I'm going to "bottom lines" in my response, because I humbly submit that I am not ever going to "out argue" you on this..or probably anything else.. (partly, because you have already decided what it means..and that Joseph Smith is not a prophet). Just as you claim that LDS create their own Joseph Smith with only positive aspects, I believe that is what the critics do, only in the reverse. In this example, yes, you have some "facts" that you believe you are interpreted correctly (and Joseph MUST be guilty, based on these couple of verses), but if you look at the bigger picture, I think you will see that none of the prophets married only virgins, so that must not be how THEY were interpreting that scripture. I know that 'virgin only marriages' were not practiced (and doesn't even sound very practical), so I know that you are not understanding or seeing the bigger picture. That is not ME ignoring "facts", but rather YOU ignoring some of the facts and honing in on this very narrow view that you somehow believe is the whole "truth" of it. You are coming from unbelief, so that is all you're seeing. Debating someone who has very strong opinions about the LDS church (on either side) is kind of like arguing with a brick wall. LDS are often accused of wearing blinders...but, I think that is probably just as true for many of the critics.

I believe in Jesus Christ and I agree with you that he is the only truth with which we should concern ourselves...and if this is his church...well, we better pay attention, because it's all about him.

Hi Libby. My family and I are heading to Lake Havasu this Summer. Driving for 12 hours or so.

As a believer, I really appreciate this type of humble perspective. Faith is more about personal, spiritual experience than it is about argument. Is that an understatement or what?

And the validity of personal experience cannot be argued.

Libby

03-13-2009, 10:22 PM

Hi Libby. My family and I are heading to Lake Havasu this Summer. Driving for 12 hours or so.

As a believer, I really appreciate this type of humble perspective. Faith is more about personal, spiritual experience than it is about argument. Is that an understatement or what?

And the validity of personal experience cannot be argued.

Hi Fig......Lake Havasu is very hot in the summer! London Bridge is well worth seeing, though...very fun. :)

I agree with you about faith. How can you argue personal, subjective experiences? You can convey them and sometimes people will feel that spirit...but you can't really "argue" it into existence..usually.

Russ

03-13-2009, 10:34 PM

Hi Fig......Lake Havasu is very hot in the summer! London Bridge is well worth seeing, though...very fun. :)

I agree with you about faith. How can you argue personal, subjective experiences? You can convey them and sometimes people will feel that spirit...but you can't really "argue" it into existence..usually.

Right.

It can't be argued. It must be revealed.

Joseph revealed himself.

Richard

03-14-2009, 12:01 AM

Right.

It can't be argued. It must be revealed.

Joseph revealed himself.

Really nice Russ. You're again being the false accuser. How is the snippet web site doing, getting a lot of hits from fellow snippeters. :rolleyes:

Bob Betts

03-14-2009, 08:53 AM

I'm going to "bottom lines" in my response, because I humbly submit that I am not ever going to "out argue" you on this..or probably anything else.. (partly, because you have already decided what it means..and that Joseph Smith is not a prophet). And, I sincerely believe that you have to resort to "bottom lines because you cannot "rightly divide" what verses 61-63 actually say.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that you are the only one who has carried this discussion...that no priesthood-holding man has bothered, since Fig gave up after only one attempt?

The problem with you and Fig, relying entirely on faith in order to believe in Joseph Smith, is that you entirely avoid the truth. The truth is your enemy. Truth is the enemy of the entire Mormon Church. If the truth of verse 61-63 was on your side, then you would not have to retreat to the bottom line, of faith no matter what the clear facts are.

Just as you claim that LDS create their own Joseph Smith with only positive aspects, I believe that is what the critics do, only in the reverse.I, as a critic, have not created anything, by examining the wording of verses 61-63, while you and the rest of the Mormons on this site, avoid such an examination, and retreat to bottom lines. You (Mormons) cannot examine those verses and arrive at the truth that you want, so you retreat to faith alone. In doing so, you treat "truth," which Jesus spoke of at least as highly as faith, as inferior to faith. And, that is a sin.

In this example, yes, you have some "facts" that you believe you are interpreting correctly (and Joseph MUST be guilty, based on these couple of verses), THREE verses, which allegedly contain the very revelatory commandment of God to Joseph Smith (et al), defining the details of God's will concerning plural marriage. None of you have attempted to deal with the "facts," but have deliberately avoided them.

but if you look at the bigger picture,Which causes you to avoid or ignore the facts in the details of verses 61-63...the truth.

I think you will see that none of the prophets married only virgins, so that must not be how THEY were interpreting that scripture. I know that 'virgin only marriages' were not practiced (and doesn't even sound very practical), so I know that you are not understanding or seeing the bigger picture. Look at what your "bigger picture" does to your reason and perspective...

Because the leaders did not bother to adhere to the decrees of the plural wife commandment of God, and their practice of it was the exact opposite of what God decreed, then what they practiced became the truth, rather than the decrees within the "law of the priesthood."

That is not ME ignoring "facts", but rather YOU ignoring some of the facts and honing in on this very narrow view that you somehow believe is the whole "truth" of it. You, and every Mormon, have INDEED ignored the facts of the details of the wording of "law of the priesthood," and have allowed yourselves to determine the "truth" of it by how the leaders practiced it, instead.

In fact, the WORD of God is interpreted BY the practices of the leaders, even though YOU know that the WORD of God's "law," is NOT what they practiced.

You are coming from unbelief, so that is all you're seeing. That's not true. What IS true, is that YOU are coming from believing "the best," because THE TRUTH of the "law of the priesthood" would destroy your faith in Joseph Smith. And, you will bend over backwards to prevent your faith in Joseph smith from being shaken, even if retreating to a "bottom line" is your only means of clinging to that faith.

Debating someone who has very strong opinions about the LDS church (on either side) is kind of like arguing with a brick wall. LDS are often accused of wearing blinders...but, I think that is probably just as true for many of the critics.Yet, I'm the ONLY one attempting to "rightly divide" the decrees of the alleged word of God in the "law of the priesthood," while the rest of you Mormons) retreat to a "bottom line" of "faith" being the all-in-all of your acceptance of your leaders practices of polygamy, despite those practices being the opposite of what the "law" states.

"Practice" rules, the truth of the decreed will of God in His recorded WORD, doesn't matter.

I believe in Jesus Christ and I agree with you that he is the only truth with which we should concern ourselves...and if this is his church...well, we better pay attention, because it's all about him.Yet, you circumvent His truth, by ignoring what was allegedly decreed by God, in order to preserve a cherished image of Joseph Smith, based on a supreme value of believing "the best." Truth be ****ed. You (Mormons) are allowing the practices of those early 'church' leaders to cloud the facts of the alleged decree of God in verses 61-63. And, that's why I can't get a substantive argument from any Mormon on that subject.

Because I love you, Libby (and all Mormons), and can clearly see what is happening to you, I am going to Deseret to obtain and read my own copy of "Shaken Faith Syndrome." I believe that when I read it, I will find that the author taught you to avoid the details of the truth, and retreat to a "bottom line" of "faith alone," in order to avoid shaking your faith in Joseph Smith. Between that and the holy scriptures, I'm going to expose that lie, and stab your false "bottom line" method of interpretation in the heart.

Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." You (Mormons) are in bondage, and don't see it, being blinded by blind faith alone, ignoring the truth which is staring you in the face.

I'm on a mission.

Father_JD

03-14-2009, 05:58 PM

You (Mormons) cannot examine those verses and arrive at the truth that you want, so you retreat to faith alone.

And that's called, "Fideism"...a term with which most Mormons are unfamiliar.

Father_JD

03-14-2009, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
I don't give a flip what your "screed" tells you, M. But BIBLICALLY, one can NOT "achieve" being "born again". It's solely the work of the HOLY SPIRIT.

Maybe you should as then you would have a shred of validity in what you say about it.

LOL. Not when Mormon screed has been OBJECTIVELY determined to be FRAUDULENT. :eek:

Originally Posted by Father_JD
You've never demonstrated error on my part, M. Mormonism's soteriology is:faith + WORKS.

I have as much likelihood of you showing me the common courtesy of using my forum name as there is of you ever admitting to being wrong.

I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptible to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"?? ;) Oh, btw...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong, but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or
2. Confused.

Which is it?

Originally Posted by Father_JD
No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times messy with your misunderstanding of "free will":In your scenario,one chooses to be good one day,and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your multi-tiered "heavens"!!

The more you talk the sillier you become. This is not what we believe at all.

Oh, because I didn't mention that you believe one MUST also have a smidgen of what you think is "faith" to the above?? :rolleyes:

Libby

03-14-2009, 07:35 PM

And, I sincerely believe that you have to resort to "bottom lines because you cannot "rightly divide" what verses 61-63 actually say.

Who gets to decide how it's "rightly divided", Bob? You? You don't even believe it's God's word..that is the "bottom line", for you. Now, please show me in those verses where it says men shall marry virgins, only.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that you are the only one who has carried this discussion...that no priesthood-holding man has bothered, since Fig gave up after only one attempt?

No, because answers have already been given. Not many people are as willing, as I, to beat their head against a brick wall. :)

The problem with you and Fig, relying entirely on faith in order to believe in Joseph Smith, is that you entirely avoid the truth. The truth is your enemy. Truth is the enemy of the entire Mormon Church. If the truth of verse 61-63 was on your side, then you would not have to retreat to the bottom line, of faith no matter what the clear facts are.

My bottom line is truth. Not having perfect understanding of something, doesn't automatically make it untrue. Just as you (and I) both believe the Bible is God's word, so do I believe that D&C was inspired by God. Do you have perfect understanding of every single verse in the Bible? If you find things that appear contradictory (and those things definitely exist within the Bible) do you automatically ***ume the authors were uninspired? Or do you think, perhaps, your understanding is somewhat limited?

I, as a critic, have not created anything, by examining the wording of verses 61-63, while you and the rest of the Mormons on this site, avoid such an examination, and retreat to bottom lines. You (Mormons) cannot examine those verses and arrive at the truth that you want, so you retreat to faith alone. In doing so, you treat "truth," which Jesus spoke of at least as highly as faith, as inferior to faith. And, that is a sin.

I am a sinner, no doubt about that. But, in this case, appealing to faith in Jesus Christ and what I believe to be his church, is not a sin.

THREE verses, which allegedly contain the very revelatory commandment of God to Joseph Smith (et al), defining the details of God's will concerning plural marriage. None of you have attempted to deal with the "facts," but have deliberately avoided them.

Not true. Just putting them in a larger and more correct context, which makes interpretation more accurate..not less so.

Look at what your "bigger picture" does to your reason and perspective...

:( Please don't devolve into that kind of ad hom attack, Bob. There is nothing wrong with my reasoning ability. Since when does looking at the 'bigger picture' make for a less accurate interpretation?? Details are all fine and good...in proper context. Out of context, details can mean something totally different from what was originally intended.

Because the leaders did not bother to adhere to the decrees of the plural wife commandment of God, and their practice of it was the exact opposite of what God decreed, then what they practiced became the truth, rather than the decrees within the "law of the priesthood."

You, and every Mormon, have INDEED ignored the facts of the details of the wording of "law of the priesthood," and have allowed yourselves to determine the "truth" of it by how the leaders practiced it, instead.

Which, once again, shows that your interpretation must be off. If the prophets and leaders of this church, back then, were truly lead by God (as I believe), and practiced something they believed was given of God, then it stands to reason that your interpretation of "the law of the priesthood" is incorrect. They must have known something that you do not.

In fact, the WORD of God is interpreted BY the practices of the leaders, even though YOU know that the WORD of God's "law," is NOT what they practiced.

I know no such thing. All I know is that my understanding of this has been and IS very limited. That may not always be the case, but for now it is...thus, relying on my faith in Jesus Christ to carry me, for now.

That's not true. What IS true, is that YOU are coming from believing "the best," because THE TRUTH of the "law of the priesthood" would destroy your faith in Joseph Smith. And, you will bend over backwards to prevent your faith in Joseph smith from being shaken, even if retreating to a "bottom line" is your only means of clinging to that faith.

It is true, Bob. You don't believe that the LDS Church is Christ's Church, so you come from "unbelief", in that regard.

As for destroying my faith in Joseph? My faith is not in Joseph. It is in God and His Son, Jesus Christ..and the Holy Spirit who kept pointing to His Church. I belong to Christ, no matter what.

Because I love you, Libby (and all Mormons), and can clearly see what is happening to you, I am going to Deseret to obtain and read my own copy of "Shaken Faith Syndrome." I believe that when I read it, I will find that the author taught you to avoid the details of the truth, and retreat to a "bottom line" of "faith alone," in order to avoid shaking your faith in Joseph Smith. Between that and the holy scriptures, I'm going to expose that lie, and stab your false "bottom line" method of interpretation in the heart.

I would encourage you (and anyone else) to read the book. It's actually much more practical than what you are thinking. It's not a "bottom line" book. Bottom line is mostly my personality. I've never been very detail oriented (which gets me in trouble, sometimes). I like overviews and bottom line ***essments...the "core of the matter". :)

Details are often important, though, and Ash's book gives lots of details on favorite themes of LDS critics. He does not ever suggest that 'faith alone' is necessary, but rather gives good reasons for sustaining faith. (This aspect of 'law of the priesthood, is not covered in his book, though).. The important lesson in Ash's book is that context is extremely important..just as it is when we read the Bible. As I have heard said, so many times, context is king.

Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." You (Mormons) are in bondage, and don't see it, being blinded by blind faith alone, ignoring the truth which is staring you in the face.

I know the truth. It is Jesus Christ. My faith is in him, alone...and it's not blind.

I'm on a mission.

Love ya, Bob. :)

Hope you enjoy the book.

Russ

03-14-2009, 07:45 PM

Might I get your input on the occultic symbols of the LDS religion?

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=446

Fig-bearing Thistle

03-14-2009, 07:51 PM

No, because answers have already been given. Not many people are as willing, as I, to beat their head against a brick wall. :)

Quite right, Libby. I've spent months myself on this topic. It leads nowhere. But it is Bob's pet topic.

And so he uses playground taunting tactics to bait us saying such things as "If male members of your church don't keep talking about this subject as long as I want to, they must be running from the topic."

It's an old trick used by children.

Bob sees through different eyegl***es than I do, or you do, and so he will never see as we do.

Libby

03-14-2009, 11:42 PM

Might I get your input on the occultic symbols of the LDS religion?

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=446

Russ, no, I'd rather not get involved in that discussion. Anything you want to know about LDS Temple symbolism is pretty widely available on the internet.

Libby

03-14-2009, 11:45 PM

Bob sees through different eyegl***es than I do, or you do, and so he will never see as we do.

Well, as one of my friends scolded me, when I said that same thing about my husband, never say never! :)

maklelan

03-14-2009, 11:53 PM

Yet, you circumvent His truth, by ignoring what was allegedly decreed by God, in order to preserve a cherished image of Joseph Smith, based on a supreme value of believing "the best." Truth be ****ed. You (Mormons) are allowing the practices of those early 'church' leaders to cloud the facts of the alleged decree of God in verses 61-63. And, that's why I can't get a substantive argument from any Mormon on that subject.

Because I love you, Libby (and all Mormons), and can clearly see what is happening to you, I am going to Deseret to obtain and read my own copy of "Shaken Faith Syndrome." I believe that when I read it, I will find that the author taught you to avoid the details of the truth, and retreat to a "bottom line" of "faith alone," in order to avoid shaking your faith in Joseph Smith. Between that and the holy scriptures, I'm going to expose that lie, and stab your false "bottom line" method of interpretation in the heart.

Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." You (Mormons) are in bondage, and don't see it, being blinded by blind faith alone, ignoring the truth which is staring you in the face.

I'm on a mission.

Bob, in an effort to try to engage your own interests on this board, I'd like to know what your particular problem is here with D&C 132:61-63. I don't feel like trying to piece it together over the course of this entire thread, so if you could give me the cliff notes version I'd be happy to respond.

Libby

03-15-2009, 12:29 PM

Bob, in an effort to try to engage your own interests on this board, I'd like to know what your particular problem is here with D&C 132:61-63. I don't feel like trying to piece it together over the course of this entire thread, so if you could give me the cliff notes version I'd be happy to respond.

I think Bob's post #309 pretty well sums it up.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7571&postcount=309

(I would really appreciate your input, Makelan)

maklelan

03-15-2009, 12:37 PM

Of all the reasons that I have heard given by LDS for plural marriage, this is the only one I've never heard given by any LDS: "to multiply and replenish the earth." This being the actual "law of the priesthood" reason, then how was it not the obligation of Joseph Smith to mate with every one of his plural wives, like a bunch of rabbits? And, if he did not, then he was in violation of the commandment.

What have I stated that is disputable by any LDS?

This is pretty basic stuff, Bob. Those women went back and lived with their husbands, who were often the people recommending the sealings. Sealing was a way to guarantee inclusion in Smith's lineage, which was considered for much of the early church a sure way to heaven. There's no evidence that any of those women married to other men ever had sexual relations with Smith (third-hand accounts of hazy memories from 75 years after the fact don't count, especially since DNA testing doesn't support the memories), and the fact that their husbands recommended the sealings, were present at the sealings, and then took the women back home with them is a clear indication these weren't traditional polygamous marriages. Keep in mind Joseph Smith was also sealed to several men. You're not going to insist he was gay too, are you? You're just conflating a bunch of material and expressing shock when it doesn't line up with your antagonistic and etic interpretation.

James Banta

03-15-2009, 01:23 PM

This is pretty basic stuff, Bob. Those women went back and lived with their husbands, who were often the people recommending the sealings. Sealing was a way to guarantee inclusion in Smith's lineage, which was considered for much of the early church a sure way to heaven. There's no evidence that any of those women married to other men ever had sexual relations with Smith (third-hand accounts of hazy memories from 75 years after the fact don't count, especially since DNA testing doesn't support the memories), and the fact that their husbands recommended the sealings, were present at the sealings, and then took the women back home with them is a clear indication these weren't traditional polygamous marriages. Keep in mind Joseph Smith was also sealed to several men. You're not going to insist he was gay too, are you? You're just conflating a bunch of material and expressing shock when it doesn't line up with your antagonistic and etic interpretation.

No evidence? Isn't it evidence that the 1832 D&C section 101 was needed to condemned the practice when no other church required such a declaration.. Nor is it evidence that Ema had a horrific reaction to the presence of Fanny Alger in her home... Tell me why the 101st section was needed if the sin of adultery and polygamy had been in the church at that time.. Why wasn't the section written by Joseph Smith? Why was it after Smith had the revelation that became the 132nd section of the D&C that the 101st section was soon removed? Why was it that Pres Young confirmed that Smith was a polygamist? There is more than enough evidence to show that Smith was in violation of the NT teaching that the leaders of the Church must be the husband of one wife.. IHS jim

maklelan

03-15-2009, 01:35 PM

No evidence? Isn't it evidence that the 1832 D&C section 101 was needed to condemned the practice when no other church required such a declaration.. Nor is it evidence that Ema had a horrific reaction to the presence of Fanny Alger in her home... Tell me why the 101st section was needed if the sin of adultery and polygamy had been in the church at that time.. Why wasn't the section written by Joseph Smith? Why was it after Smith had the revelation that became the 132nd section of the D&C that the 101st section was soon removed? Why was it that Pres Young confirmed that Smith was a polygamist? There is more than enough evidence to show that Smith was in violation of the NT teaching that the leaders of the Church must be the husband of one wife.. IHS jim

You've totally misread my post. Try again, and this time pay attention. I'll get you going in the right direction. What evidence, specifically, did I say is lacking?

Richard

03-15-2009, 03:37 PM

No evidence? Isn't it evidence that the 1832 D&C section 101 was needed to condemned the practice when no other church required such a declaration.. Nor is it evidence that Ema had a horrific reaction to the presence of Fanny Alger in her home... Tell me why the 101st section was needed if the sin of adultery and polygamy had been in the church at that time.. Why wasn't the section written by Joseph Smith? Why was it after Smith had the revelation that became the 132nd section of the D&C that the 101st section was soon removed? Why was it that Pres Young confirmed that Smith was a polygamist? There is more than enough evidence to show that Smith was in violation of the NT teaching that the leaders of the Church must be the husband of one wife.. IHS jim

First of all James, you state a false unprovable accusation, quote James, " sin of adultery and polygamy". As we have been stating over and over, no one has stepped up to the plate and produced any evidence of immoral behavior. Don't post with accusation you cannot quote or site.

R.

James Banta

03-15-2009, 11:20 PM

You've totally misread my post. Try again, and this time pay attention. I'll get you going in the right direction. What evidence, specifically, did I say is lacking?

So you are willing to admit that Smith took other women for wife and had serious personal relationships with them.. At least enough to make the church question whether adultery and polygamy was being allowed at the top levels of the church.. That is a good step forward.. No matter how rude you are about admitting it I still like the progress... IHS jim

James Banta

03-15-2009, 11:39 PM

First of all James, you state a false unprovable accusation, quote James, " sin of adultery and polygamy". As we have been stating over and over, no one has stepped up to the plate and produced any evidence of immoral behavior. Don't post with accusation you cannot quote or site.

R.

While I wouldn't call this proof I do call it evidence of which you just said there is none.. This kills that ***ertion.. There is indeed evidence!!

Chauncey Webb recounts Emma’s later discovery of the relationship: “Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house”. (Mormon Polygamy: A History, pgs 6, 10, 85)

This however is fact that the church leadership (Not Smith) saw a problem in the church and published this as a church tenet not to be removed until 1876 when polygamy was far to widespread to hide..

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife, and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (Doctrine and Covenants 1835, section 101, verse 4)

I know you don't like it.. I am sorry for you and hold out my hand in friendship. I also point to He who can offer you salvation and has purchased it for you with His own blood.. Jesus stand ready to give you this life if you would only reach out and take it from His willing hands.. IHS jim

maklelan

03-15-2009, 11:39 PM

So you are willing to admit that Smith took other women for wife and had serious personal relationships with them.. At least enough to make the church question whether adultery and polygamy was being allowed at the top levels of the church.. That is a good step forward.. No matter how rude you are about admitting it I still like the progress... IHS jim

This is the sign of someone more interested in perpetuating his dogma than in being honest or finding the truth. It's been made clear to you that you were totally mistaken, and rather than being a decent human being and recognizing that, you vomit up this sad little attempt to turn the tables and talk down to me. You don't even have the decency to take responsibility for stupid mistakes and you really think these pathetic little insults mean something? You're just an enormous waste of my time. You're on ignore.

Mesenja

03-16-2009, 04:03 AM

LOL. Not when Mormon screed has been OBJECTIVELY determined to be FRAUDULENT. :eek:

A knowledge of the Book of Mormon would give credibility to your claims of expertise.

You've never demonstrated error on my part,M. Mormonism's soteriology is faith + WORKS.

I have already provided you with quotes from the Book of Mormon that counter this argument.

I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptable to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"?? ;)

M would be fine.

Oh,BTW...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong,but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or

2. Confused.

Which is it?

What exactly have you proven to the lurkers by this?

No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times Messy with your misunderstanding of "free will":In your scenario,one chooses to be good one day,and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your multi-tiered "heavens"!!

This is not what we believe in.

Oh,because I didn't mention that you believe one MUST also have a smidgen of what you think is "faith" to the above?? :rolleyes:

No because you never bothered to study the Book of Mormon either while a member of the church or afterwards as an anti-Mormon.

Father_JD

03-16-2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
LOL. Not when Mormon screed has been OBJECTIVELY determined to be FRAUDULENT.

A knowledge of the Book of Mormon would give credibility to your claims of expertise.

I DO have a knowledge of it...that's just one reason I reject it as "scripture".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
You've never demonstrated error on my part,M. Mormonism's soteriology is faith + WORKS.

I have already provided you with quotes from the Book of Mormon that counter this argument.

I don't care what citations you bring to the table...you yourself have CONTRADICTED your own spurious screed when it comes to faith and works. I merely parroted back to you your own words, summarizing them. :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptable to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"??

M would be fine.

Ok, <ahem> Mr. M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Oh,BTW...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong,but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or

2. Confused.

Which is it?

What exactly have you proven to the lurkers by this?

When they can read your own comments and deduce from them that you believe salvation is:

Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that.

But with your vehement denials that that's what you believe, you come across either confused or purposely dishonest. Context determines meaning and it's clear you're one or the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times Messy with your misunderstanding of "free will":In your scenario,one chooses to be good one day,and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your multi-tiered "heavens"!!

This is not what we believe in.

Ri-i-i-ight. Another "nuh-uh" response I see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Oh,because I didn't mention that you believe one MUST also have a smidgen of what you think is "faith" to the above??

No because you never bothered to study the Book of Mormon either while a member of the church or afterwards as an anti-Mormon.

And just how am I wrong, M.? Just remember, you have yet to prove me somehow wrong. :rolleyes:

Fig-bearing Thistle

03-16-2009, 10:55 AM

When they can read your own comments and deduce from them that you believe salvation is:

Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that.

JD, our works are only a manifestation of our faith and belief in the Savior's own words.

I guess I should just parrot the notion that you believe that simply uttering the words "Lord, Lord" are sufficient for you to be saved.

Great. I think I'll do that.

Zakuska

03-16-2009, 06:06 PM

Whats funny is Bod calls JS an Adultuerer and a False Prophet. He says he can't beleive some one who doesn't tell the truth at all times.

Yet Bob Believes the Pslams in the Bible written by one of the Most Famous Adultuerers in all History, as well as the words of a self confessed pathological Liar.

Talk about strange bed fellows. :o

Fig-bearing Thistle

03-16-2009, 08:46 PM

Well, as one of my friends scolded me, when I said that same thing about my husband, never say never! :)

That's true Libby. What I meant was that he will never see what a believer sees as long as he only wears the gl***es of the unbeliever.

James Banta

03-16-2009, 09:37 PM

This is the sign of someone more interested in perpetuating his dogma than in being honest or finding the truth. It's been made clear to you that you were totally mistaken, and rather than being a decent human being and recognizing that, you vomit up this sad little attempt to turn the tables and talk down to me. You don't even have the decency to take responsibility for stupid mistakes and you really think these pathetic little insults mean something? You're just an enormous waste of my time. You're on ignore.

It would seem that maklelan won't see this because he has me on ignore.. I guess when real evidence is presented that shows that polygamy was not allowed by the church at the same time Smith was fully engaged in it's practice that maklelan had no answer so he decide to drop one last personal attack on me and close off to reason and logic.. I have stated that in 1839 polygamy was considered a sin by the mormon church.. To maklelan that is considered to be a lie.. He has made it clear that I made it up.. That I am the liar and Smith was pure... I have no fear of maklelan I will not block his twists and denies of scripture or history.. IHS jim

Billyray

03-17-2009, 02:05 AM

Those women went back and lived with their husbands, who were often the people recommending the sealings. Sealing was a way to guarantee inclusion in Smith's lineage, which was considered for much of the early church a sure way to heaven.
So one of the main reasons for these sealings was to ensure that these woman could get into heaven? Who gave these woman the idea that being sealed to Joseph would help them get into heaven?

maklelan

03-17-2009, 06:55 AM

So one of the main reasons for these sealings was to ensure that these woman could get into heaven? Who gave these woman the idea that being sealed to Joseph would help them get into heaven?

That was just the earliest perception all the members had of the sealing power.

JDErickson

03-17-2009, 08:28 AM

That was just the earliest perception all the members had of the sealing power.

And Joseph Smith didn't correct their false doctrinal ideas?

Why?

maklelan

03-17-2009, 08:48 AM

And Joseph Smith didn't correct their false doctrinal ideas?

Why?

He promoted the idea too. It wasn't necessarily a false doctrine, it was just another perspective.

Billyray

03-17-2009, 09:26 AM

He promoted the idea too. It wasn't necessarily a false doctrine, it was just another perspective.

How does being sealed to Joseph Smith help one get into heaven, all else being equal?

JDErickson

03-17-2009, 10:01 AM

He promoted the idea too. It wasn't necessarily a false doctrine, it was just another perspective.

So Joseph Smith promoted the idea that being sealed to him would help them get to heaven?

maklelan

03-17-2009, 10:31 AM

How does being sealed to Joseph Smith help one get into heaven, all else being equal?

His lineage was considered so powerful. It would have been like being adopted into Jesus' family.

maklelan

03-17-2009, 10:33 AM

So Joseph Smith promoted the idea that being sealed to him would help them get to heaven?

He promoted the idea that filling in the genealogical gaps in ones lineage would help the salvation of one's line, and being added to his lineage was one of the best ways to do this.

JDErickson

03-17-2009, 10:44 AM

He promoted the idea that filling in the genealogical gaps in ones lineage would help the salvation of one's line, and being added to his lineage was one of the best ways to do this.

So in this same theme if a woman was sealed to say the Apostle Peter she would have a better chance of going to Heaven?

maklelan

03-17-2009, 10:47 AM

So in this same theme if a woman was sealed to say the Apostle Peter she would have a better chance of going to Heaven?

I'm not interested in entertaining this little fishing expedition. If you have a point then make it. If not, I'll be moving on.

JDErickson

03-17-2009, 10:58 AM

I'm not interested in entertaining this little fishing expedition. If you have a point then make it. If not, I'll be moving on.

Sorry I don't fish.

Question is valid. Does Joseph Smith's promoting being sealed to him as a way to shore up a person's lineage and help them go to heaven apply to anyone that has a "better" lineage than another?

Would being sealed to your current Prophet help you get to heaven or shore up your lineage (of course if polygamy was still practiced)?

If not was Joseph Smith's promotion of this doctrine false?

Billyray

03-17-2009, 11:00 AM

Billyray asks,
"How does being sealed to Joseph Smith help one get into heaven, all else being equal?"

Mak replies,
His lineage was considered so powerful. It would have been like being adopted into Jesus' family.
Does this idea of sealing one person to another prominent leader and somehow having this sealing ordinance improve your chances to get into heaven have any basis in the Bible?

Or is this strictly the idea of Joseph Smith?

maklelan

03-17-2009, 11:41 AM

Sorry I don't fish.

Again, don't insult my intelligence. You're not clever enough yo get away with it.

Question is valid. Does Joseph Smith's promoting being sealed to him as a way to shore up a person's lineage and help them go to heaven apply to anyone that has a "better" lineage than another?

You've missed the point entirely. It's not about better or worse, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you. You're never going to understand, since all you want to do is spew bigotry. I'm done with you.

Father_JD

03-17-2009, 11:44 AM

You haven't shown this from scripture.

And how do I prove a "negative," M.? How do I prove that God did NOT command polygamy given the absence of such a command?

Do tell us, ok? :rolleyes:

Billyray

03-17-2009, 11:48 AM

I'm not interested in entertaining this little fishing expedition. If you have a point then make it. If not, I'll be moving on.

". . .Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."
LDS History of the Church 6:411 May 1844

Was Joseph Smith telling the truth here, or was this a lie about having only one wife?

JDErickson

03-17-2009, 11:59 AM

Again, don't insult my intelligence. You're not clever enough yo get away with it.

If I wanted to insult you then you would have known it.

You've missed the point entirely. It's not about better or worse, but I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you. You're never going to understand, since all you want to do is spew bigotry. I'm done with you.

What bigotry? In my 9 posts please find 1 instance of "bigotry".

If you can't defend yourself without being an *** then you should get out of apologetics.

I'll await your answer or we all can safely ***ume you have no idea what you are talking about.

Billyray

03-17-2009, 04:13 PM

MAKLELAN (posted on another board)
"I'm sure I'm just ****ing this way out of proportion, but over on WalterMartin.com I've recently been wasting a ton of time dealing with the same old ****, and I got into a couple discussions with Bob Betts, who several years ago banned me from Concerned Christians. For the past couple weeks he's refused to respond to a number of issues I've been bringing up, making it clear his primary focus was on polygamy and Joseph Smith (apparently no one over there likes dealing with the Bible). In an effort to extend an olive branch I told him I would engage his polygamy argument on one of his threads. An LDS poster on that thread said they would appreciate my input. Yesterday I responded with a rather short and to the point post that seemed to me to expose a rather simple and fundamental flaw in Betts' argumentation. No response from Bob."

1 What is that fundamental flaw that you were speaking about?

2. You stated, "apparently no one over there likes dealing with the Bible". I think that this is quite a statement from someone who makes a challenge about the Bible, then when you are given some easy questions, you refuse to answer them.

maklelan

03-17-2009, 04:29 PM

1 What is that fundamental flaw that you were speaking about?

He presupposed that a sealing meant a sexual relationship and traditional marriage.

2. You stated, "apparently no one over there likes dealing with the Bible". I think that this is quite a statement from someone who makes a challenge about the Bible, then when you are given some easy questions, you refuse to answer them.

I wasn't given any sincere questions. I was given weak attempts at leading questions which would turn into ignorant harangues about Mormon doctrine. I'm not explaining this again. You know what you guys were doing as well as I, and it was in clear and direct violation of the conditions I asked you guys to respect. I will answer absolutely any and all questions about the Bible that are not leading questions meant to do nothing but give you a platform to vomit up ignorant bigotry about Mormon doctrine. None of you have shown yourself willing to enter that debate.

Billyray

03-17-2009, 07:43 PM

maklelan

03-17-2009, 07:51 PM

Helen Mar Kimball was 14 years old when she married Joseph Smith. Do you think that this was done for the sole purpose to help her get into heaven?

Helen Mar KIMBALL (AFN: 1FZD-48) Pedigree
Sex: F Family
Event(s)
Birth: 20 Aug 1828 Mendon, Monroe, Ny
Death: 13 Nov 1896 Salt Lake City, S-Lk, Ut

Spouse: Joseph SMITH (AFN: 9KGL-W2) Family
Marriage: May 1843
Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Han****, Il
Reference---->familysearch.org

I'm going to post what I originally said about what I'm addressing and you tell me where you've misunderstood. I'll even put it in bold so you don't have any trouble:

This is pretty basic stuff, Bob. Those women went back and lived with their husbands, who were often the people recommending the sealings. Sealing was a way to guarantee inclusion in Smith's lineage, which was considered for much of the early church a sure way to heaven. There's no evidence that any of those women married to other men ever had sexual relations with Smith (third-hand accounts of hazy memories from 75 years after the fact don't count, especially since DNA testing doesn't support the memories), and the fact that their husbands recommended the sealings, were present at the sealings, and then took the women back home with them is a clear indication these weren't traditional polygamous marriages. Keep in mind Joseph Smith was also sealed to several men. You're not going to insist he was gay too, are you? You're just conflating a bunch of material and expressing shock when it doesn't line up with your antagonistic and etic interpretation.

I don't want to hear a different accusation or an insult. You tell me exactly how your post is mistaken or I'm done with you. I'm tired of dealing with this juvenile refusal to take responsibility for the accusations being made.

Billyray

03-17-2009, 08:02 PM

I don't want to hear a different accusation or an insult. You tell me exactly how your post is mistaken or I'm done with you. I'm tired of dealing with this juvenile refusal to take responsibility for the accusations being made.
Can you point out in my post where I stated that the MARRIAGE between the 14 year old pre teen and Joseph Smith was consummated?

So I take it from your previous posts that Joseph was helping this poor girl out by helping her get to heaven.

Don't you think that a full grown man marrying a 14 year old girl gives the "appearance of evil" even if you are right that he does not consumate the relationship?

1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

Billyray

03-17-2009, 08:03 PM

". . .Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."
LDS History of the Church 6:411 May 1844

Was Joseph Smith telling the truth here, or was this a lie about having only one wife?

Mak, bump for your answer.

maklelan

03-17-2009, 08:33 PM

Can you point out in my post where I stated that the MARRIAGE between the 14 year old pre teen and Joseph Smith was consummated?

So I take it from your previous posts that Joseph was helping this poor girl out by helping her get to heaven.

Don't you think that a full grown man marrying a 14 year old girl gives the "appearance of evil" even if you are right that he does not consumate the relationship?

1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

14 year olds got married not infrequently back then, but this whole conversation has been about previously married women being sealed to Joseph Smith. Trying to change the subject to something you feel more comfortable with isn't respectable debate. I'm done with you.

Billyray

03-17-2009, 08:36 PM

14 year olds got married not infrequently back then, but this whole conversation has been about previously married women being sealed to Joseph Smith. Trying to change the subject to something you feel more comfortable with isn't respectable debate.
The fact that Joseph Smith, a full grown man, married a 14 year old girl does NOT make me feel very comfortable. It creeps me out, just like it does when the FLDS do the same thing today.

Doc

03-17-2009, 08:45 PM

So I take it from your previous posts that Joseph was helping this poor girl out by helping her get to heaven.

Don't you think that a full grown man marrying a 14 year old girl gives the "appearance of evil" even if you are right that he does not consumate the relationship?

Helen Mar Kimball was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith at the request of Helen's father, Heber C. Kimball. This was because of Heber's desire to be connected to the Prophet in the hereafter. Helen wrote:

My father...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 introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph.
This sealing was considered dynastic and after the sealing Helen lived with her parents.

***us 1:15

Doc

~

Billyray

03-17-2009, 08:57 PM

Helen Mars Helen wrote:
. . .My father...he offered me to him;

"he offered me to him" I think says it all.

This sealing was considered dynastic and after the sealing Helen lived with her parents.

Sex or no sex, a full grown man marrying a 14 year old is very strange indeed no matter how you cl***ify it.

Fig-bearing Thistle

03-17-2009, 09:14 PM

"he offered me to him" I think says it all.

Sex or no sex, a full grown man marrying a 14 year old is very strange indeed no matter how you cl***ify it.

Helen Mar was weeks away from being 15. Not that it matters much.

But yes, I can see how this would seem strange to people today. Especially to people who have never heard of the term "sealing" and those who don't understand what it means, or how it was practiced then and now.

Billyray

03-18-2009, 08:18 AM

Helen Mar was weeks away from being 15. Not that it matters much.

But yes, I can see how this would seem strange to people today. Especially to people who have never heard of the term "sealing" and those who don't understand what it means, or how it was practiced then and now.
Posters keep trying to change the word marriage to sealing, I guess because it makes it seem OK for him to marry a 14 year old girl.

Let me ask you a question. If you had a 13-14 year old girl, would you take her and let her marry Thomas Monson? If not, why not? Do you think that this would help her get into the Mormon heaven?

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sealing
"A "sealing," as a generic term, means the securing, determining, or establishment of a bond of legitimacy. Among members of the Church sealing refers to the marriage of a husband and wife and to the joining together of children and parents in relationships that are to endure forever. This special type of sealing of husband and wife in marriage is referred to as "eternal marriage" or "celestial marriage." It contrasts with civil and church marriages, which are ceremonies recognized only by earthly authority and are only for the duration of mortal life."

Doc

03-18-2009, 09:42 AM

"he offered me to him" I think says it all.

Sex or no sex, a full grown man marrying a 14 year old is very strange indeed no matter how you cl***ify it.
Billyray, you are suffering from what historians call presentism. In today's day and age someone marrying a 14 year old is indeed very strange. But in the 1800's is was not. For example William Clark (of Lewis and Clark fame) met and married Julia Han****, several years his junior (he was 37), whom he met when she was 12 years old, and he decided he would marry her on her fifteenth birthday. (Biography of William Clark).

The age of consent for a girl to marry under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith’s day, the age of consent in most states was still ten. Some states raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven!

So while it may seem strange in our present day, it was not strange in Joseph Smith's day.

Doc

~

Billyray

03-18-2009, 11:13 AM

Billyray, you are suffering from what historians call presentism. In today's day and age someone marrying a 14 year old is indeed very strange. But in the 1800's is was not.
Doc

If you have (or had) a 14 year old daughter, would you have any problem with her marrying a 38 year old man (if there were no legal restrictions)?

Doc

03-18-2009, 11:27 AM

If you have (or had) a 14 year old daughter, would you have any problem with her marrying a 38 year old man (if there were no legal restrictions)?
If I lived in the 1800's, probably not as that was accepted then. Particularly if she came back to live with us after her sealing to the 38 year old man until she was older as was the case of Helen Mar Kimball.

Doc

~

nrajeff

03-18-2009, 11:53 AM

I appreciate your sensible comments, Doc.

Billyray

03-18-2009, 12:06 PM

If I lived in the 1800's, probably not as that was accepted then. Particularly if she came back to live with us after her sealing to the 38 year old man until she was older as was the case of Helen Mar Kimball.

Doc

~

I am sure that is how the FLDS fathers feel today when they "offer" their young daughters to full grown men.

Doc

03-18-2009, 12:30 PM

I appreciate your sensible comments, Doc.
Thank you.

Doc

~

Doc

03-18-2009, 12:31 PM

I am sure that is how the FLDS fathers feel today when they "offer" their young daughters to full grown men.
I know you would like to equate the two, but it is/was not the same. If you cannot figure out the difference, then perhaps further discussion if fruitless.

Doc

~

maklelan

03-18-2009, 12:39 PM

If you have (or had) a 14 year old daughter, would you have any problem with her marrying a 38 year old man (if there were no legal restrictions)?

This is a pretty blatant appeal to emotions, and it signals to me the debate has concluded. That is, of course, unless you have anything factual to add.

Father_JD

03-18-2009, 12:41 PM

This is a pretty blatant appeal to emotions, and it signals to me the debate has concluded. That is, of course, unless you have anything factual to add.

Excuse me for pointing this out...but sorta like your appeal to the warm-fuzzy as the ultimate EMOTIONAL proof that Mormonism is true? ;)

Billyray

03-18-2009, 01:08 PM

This is a pretty blatant appeal to emotions, and it signals to me the debate has concluded. That is, of course, unless you have anything factual to add.
I agree with you that this is an emotional issue. The fact that a full grown man who is already married with multiple wives marries a 14 year old girl. Then he has the nerve to lie about having more than one wife. Probably the thing that makes it more emotional is the fact that people stand behind this guy and revere him as a man of God as best noted in the song "Praise to the Man".

". . .Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."
LDS History of the Church 6:411 May 1844

maklelan

03-18-2009, 01:12 PM

Excuse me for pointing this out...but sorta like your appeal to the warm-fuzzy as the ultimate EMOTIONAL proof that Mormonism is true? ;)

Can you point to an example where I appealed to any warm fuzzies at all as emotional proof for Mormonism? If not, I can't see how this is a relevant reply.

maklelan

03-18-2009, 01:24 PM

I agree with you that this is an emotional issue. The fact that a full grown man who is already married with multiple wives marries a 14 year old girl. Then he has the nerve to lie about having more than one wife. Probably the thing that makes it more emotional is the fact that people stand behind this guy and revere him as a man of God as best noted in the song "Praise to the Man".

". . .Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."
LDS History of the Church 6:411 May 1844

Continued appeals to emotion. Yes, I'm aware that you feel strongly about this, but that has little to do with a logical debate. If you insist on ignoring logic in favor of fallacious appeals to fallacy, the debate is already over.

Father_JD

03-19-2009, 11:54 AM

uh, didn't you end the debate by appealing to your EMOTIONAL WARM-FUZZY in your past replies??

Father_JD

03-19-2009, 11:57 AM

Can you point to an example where I appealed to any warm fuzzies at all as emotional proof for Mormonism? If not, I can't see how this is a relevant reply.

You admitted as such when you replied, "Oh, that really made my testimony crumble" or words to that effect.

The ONLY reason you believe a conclusively proven HOAX called, "The Book O'Abraham" is "scripture" is BECAUSE OF YOUR EMOTIONAL WARM FUZZY.

Otherwise, you'd KNOW, UNDERSTAND, and RECOGNIZE a FRAUD when you see one. :eek:

maklelan

03-19-2009, 01:58 PM

You admitted as such when you replied, "Oh, that really made my testimony crumble" or words to that effect.

That's about the worst attempt I've ever seen to support an insupportable ***ertion.

The ONLY reason you believe a conclusively proven HOAX called, "The Book O'Abraham" is "scripture" is BECAUSE OF YOUR EMOTIONAL WARM FUZZY.

Otherwise, you'd KNOW, UNDERSTAND, and RECOGNIZE a FRAUD when you see one. :eek:

You ***erted that I fallaciously appealed to warm fuzzies in an argument. I've never done that. You were wrong. Case closed, and debate over.

Father_JD

03-20-2009, 12:40 PM

You made the comment about your "testmony" being STILL INTACT.

You implied that the "testimony" is at least one reason you hold these hoaxes to be TRUE.

maklelan

03-21-2009, 09:26 AM

You made the comment about your "testmony" being STILL INTACT.

You implied that the "testimony" is at least one reason you hold these hoaxes to be TRUE.

My own personal convictions have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or with a debate of empirical evidence. This is a maddeningly asinine red herring.

Father_JD

03-22-2009, 08:11 PM

My own personal convictions have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread or with a debate of empirical evidence. This is a maddeningly asinine red herring.

Nonsense. Your "testimony" has EVERYTHING to do with ANYTHING "Mormon". You're blind to the EVIDENCE that the BOA is a total HOAX BECAUSE of your warm-fuzzy.

Your knowledge of Hebrew is virtually WORTHLESS because you can't even exegete the ENGLISH.

maklelan

03-22-2009, 10:23 PM

Nonsense. Your "testimony" has EVERYTHING to do with ANYTHING "Mormon". You're blind to the EVIDENCE that the BOA is a total HOAX BECAUSE of your warm-fuzzy.

Your knowledge of Hebrew is virtually WORTHLESS because you can't even exegete the ENGLISH.

Add something besides "Nu-uh!" or I'm done with you. Since you obviously can't add anything of any substance whatsoever, make your petty little insult so you can rub your ego one last time and I can put you on ignore. I know your bigotry and ignorance leave you no choice.

Mesenja

03-23-2009, 09:34 AM

Are you that obtuse that you can't see it...even beginning in the Garden of Eden with the creation of Adam and Eve,NOT Adam and Eve,and Susie,and Wendy,and Elizabeth,and Nancy, and Jennifer, et al.????

When the Pharisees came tempting Jesus and asked "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? " in answer to their question regarding the subject of divorce not polygamy he replied "Have ye not read,that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,and shall cleave to his wife:and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Or from such verses is that "a man shall leave his family and cleave to his WIFE (notice,SINGULAR) and the two become one flesh"????

When Jesus quoted "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,and shall cleave unto his wife:and they shall be one flesh" this was only in reference to adultery. Moses married Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman without negating the idea of his being "one flesh" with both of his wives.

God,speaking through a prophet (Nathan) said to David "I gave thee thy master's wives into thy bosom and if that had been too little,I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." (2 Samuel 12:8) God not only gave David his wives but if David had wanted more wives,He would have given David even more if he had not sinned by committing adultery. Polygamy in the Old Testament however this was not the case at the time of the New Testament.

Mesenja

03-23-2009, 04:01 PM

And how do I prove a "negative," M.? How do I prove that God did NOT command polygamy given the absence of such a command?

Do tell us, OK? :rolleyes:

All I am asking you to do is prove biblically that "He created woman for man...NOT women for man." You can prove scripturally your own argument that this was the original plan of God can you not?

maklelan

03-23-2009, 04:14 PM

Nonsense. Your "testimony" has EVERYTHING to do with ANYTHING "Mormon". You're blind to the EVIDENCE that the BOA is a total HOAX BECAUSE of your warm-fuzzy.

Your knowledge of Hebrew is virtually WORTHLESS because you can't even exegete the ENGLISH.

Zing! I see you're totally incapable of adding anything of any substance whatsoever to this forum. I'm not interested in wasting my time just to take part in your little ego-rubbing. You're on ignore.

Mesenja

03-23-2009, 04:23 PM

I DO have a knowledge of it...that's just one reason I reject it as "scripture".

You have said previously that you had no need to read what you categorized as spurious screed.

You've never demonstrated error on my part,M. Mormonism's soteriology is faith + WORKS.

This is pretty difficult as you don't care what citations that I bring to the table since your interpretation of what I argued supersedes this.

I don't care what citations you bring to the table...you yourself have CONTRADICTED your own spurious screed when it comes to faith and works. I merely parroted back to you your own words, summarizing them. :rolleyes:

In other words don't bother me with the facts as I have already made up my mind.

I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptable to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"??

How about what you are calling me now?

Oh,BTW...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong,but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or

2. Confused.

Which is it?

How about the third alternative that your parsing of my soteriological framework is in error?

When they can read your own comments and deduce from them that you believe salvation is:

Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that.

But with your vehement denials that that's what you believe,you come across either confused or purposely dishonest. Context determines meaning and it's clear you're one or the other.

I would suggest that you pick up the Book of Mormon and prove that it teaches the doctrine of "Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that."

Father_JD

03-23-2009, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

I DO have a knowledge of it...that's just one reason I reject it as "scripture".

You have said previously that you had no need to read what you categorized as spurious screed.

I have no need to re-read it. I've read all 500+ boring pages of it several times when I was LDS. Take out all of the "And it came to p***"s and it might have been only a mere 120 boring pages to read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

You've never demonstrated error on my part,M. Mormonism's soteriology is faith + WORKS.

This is pretty difficult as you don't care what citations that I bring to the table since your interpretation of what I argued supersedes this.

I had to spoon-feed your own words back to you, showing you you firmly believe in a soteriology of faith + WORKS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

I don't care what citations you bring to the table...you yourself have CONTRADICTED your own spurious screed when it comes to faith and works. I merely parroted back to you your own words, summarizing them.

In other words don't bother me with the facts as I have already made up my mind.

LOL. What I've presented are the FACTS. I thought LDS weren't supposed to smoke...especially THAT kind of "cigarette" which appears you've been taking deep draughts of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptable to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"??

How about what you are calling me now?

The DECEIVED one?? :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

Oh,BTW...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong,but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or

2. Confused.

Which is it?

How about the third alternative that your parsing of my soteriological framework?

There is no third.

Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post

When they can read your own comments and deduce from them that you believe salvation is:

Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that.

But with your vehement denials that that's what you believe,you come across either confused or purposely dishonest. Context determines meaning and it's clear you're one or the other.

I would suggest that you pick up the Book of Mormon and prove that it teaches the doctrine of "Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that."

"You are saved by faith AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO". That's WORKS...or have you re-defined that as well?

Father_JD

03-23-2009, 06:00 PM

JD, our works are only a manifestation of our faith and belief in the Savior's own words.

I guess I should just parrot the notion that you believe that simply uttering the words "Lord, Lord" are sufficient for you to be saved.

Great. I think I'll do that.

Now that's REALLY interesting, figster. You affirm salvation BY FAITH (our works are only a manifestation of our faith...)

and THEN contradict yourself:

"simply uttering the words...are sufficient for you to be save"

which MEANS WORKS SAVE ONE. :eek:

Of course one who is TRULY saved will manifest the reality of the "new birth" by DOING WORKS...but the works do NOT justify one forensically in God's sight.

Mesenja

03-30-2009, 06:55 AM

Enough talk Father JD. Prove your argument from the Book of Mormon.

I have no need to re-read it. I've read all 500+ boring pages of it several times when I was LDS. Take out all of the "And it came to p***"s and it might have been only a mere 120 boring pages to read.

So now you are saying that you have read it. Before you had no reason to read it as it was a hoax. The bottom line is that you've proven by your statements in this thread that you've obviously forgotten everything that you've read.

You've never demonstrated error on my part,M. Mormonism's soteriology is faith + WORKS.

Then you are able to show us from the Book of Mormon that this is the case.

I had to spoon-feed your own words back to you,showing you you firmly believe in a soteriology of faith + WORKS.

You forgot the fact that you added your own commentary.

I don't care what citations you bring to the table...you yourself have CONTRADICTED your own spurious screed when it comes to faith and works. I merely parroted back to you your own words, summarizing them.

LOL. What I've presented are the FACTS. I thought LDS weren't supposed to smoke...especially THAT kind of "cigarette" which appears you've been taking deep draughts of.

Yes you presented the facts as you see them FatherJD.

I refuse to dignify your forum name 'cause you're NO messenger of Jehovah...so what alternative name would be acceptable to you? Gory for "Egor"? Tooster for "Gentoo"??

The DECEIVED one?? :D

Have you forgotten what you yourself agreed to call me already? And of course we can trust your understanding of a book that you now claim that you have read decades ago yet previously denied reading.

Oh,BTW...I'm NOT wrong...I p****d your little soteriological framework. You haven't proven ME wrong,but have demonstrated to all lurkers that you're either:

1. Dishonest...or

2. Confused.

Which is it?

There is no third.

When they can read your own comments and deduce from them that you believe salvation is:

Faith + WORKS...and lots of works at that.

But with your vehement denials that that's what you believe,you come across either confused or purposely dishonest. Context determines meaning and it's clear you're one or the other.

"You are saved by faith AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO". That's WORKS...or have you re-defined that as well?

Context may determine meaning but all you've shown by your parsing of my quotations is that your commentary and deductions prove that you've understood neither.

nrajeff

03-30-2009, 08:00 AM

I've read all 500+ boring pages of it several times when I was LDS. Take out all of the "And it came to p***"s and it might have been only a mere 120 boring pages to read.
---Is that a fact--that over 75% of the text consists of "and it came to p***"?

What I've presented are the FACTS.
---Hmmm. I dunno. Almost thou persuadest me to use a search engine, remove all instances of "and it came to p***" and count how many pages remain.

Father_JD

03-30-2009, 08:47 AM

---Is that a fact--that over 75% of the text consists of "and it came to p***"?

---Hmmm. I dunno. Almost thou persuadest me to use a search engine, remove all instances of "and it came to p***" and count how many pages remain.

LOL!! Thanks for your returned tongue-in-cheek reply, jeff! It made me smile!!:D:D

Mesenja

03-30-2009, 12:42 PM

nrajeff

03-30-2009, 01:04 PM

LOL!! Thanks for your returned tongue-in-cheek reply, jeff! It made me smile!!:D:D

--Tongue-in WHAT now? Say what? What makes you think I was joking? :confused:

Father_JD

03-30-2009, 03:11 PM

--Tongue-in WHAT now? Say what? What makes you think I was joking? :confused:

Uh...'cause I was joking. :p

Father_JD

03-30-2009, 03:13 PM

Uh...are you forgetting that famous faith + WORKS verse that says in so many words, "We know we are saved AFTER ALL WE CAN DO"??

Are you gonna deny this teaches a works-based soteriology??

Mesenja

04-06-2009, 06:51 AM

Uh...are you forgetting that famous faith + WORKS verse that says in so many words, "We know we are saved AFTER ALL WE CAN DO"??

Are you gonna deny this teaches a works-based soteriology??

The Book of Mormon makes it abundantly clear that we are not saved our own works but through the righteousness of Christ.

"And [the people] viewed themselves in their own carnal state,even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice,saying:O have mercy,and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins,and our hearts may be purified;for we believe in Jesus Christ,the Son of God, who created heaven and earth,and all things;who shall come down among the children of men.

"And it came to p*** that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them,and they were filled with joy,having received a remission of their sins,and having peace of conscience,because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come,according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them." (Mosiah 4:2-3,emphasis added)

"And if ye believe on [the name of Jesus Christ] ye will repent of all your sins,that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his [Jesus Christ] merits." (Helaman 14:13,emphasis added)

"O remember,remember,my sons,the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people;yea,remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved,only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ,who shall come;yea,remember that he cometh to redeem the world. (Helaman 5:9,emphasis added)

When Nephi said "it is by grace that we are saved,after all we can do" it was not a theological treatise on salvation rather it was an exhortation to do your best and exercise faith that leads to repentance.The Book of Mormon is not teaching us here that we are saved by grace only if we make up the difference through our works. All we are asked to do is repent of our sins.

And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice,and encircles them in the arms of safety,while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice;therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. (Alma 34:16,emphasis added)

And I also thank my great God,that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things...which we have committed,and taken away the guilt from our hearts,through the merits of his Son. And now behold my brethren,since it has been all that we could do,(as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins...which we have committed,and to get God to take them away from our hearts,for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain. (Alma 24:11,emphasis added)

Father_JD

04-06-2009, 11:51 AM

Mesenja

04-06-2009, 12:10 PM

I think "Nephi" can speak for his imaginary self,M. It's more than apparent that your "nuh-uh" response regarding his statement carries no weight,although other p***ages in the Book-O-Mormon suggest a SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH soteriology.

We both know that Mormonism proper does NOT teach this,and your own equivocation back and forth has exemplified this to a great degree.

What exactly have you offered in return besides your typical nu-uh your wrong because my interpretation is always correct response? Saying that my response carries no weight but offering no arguments in support of this in return? Saying that "other p***ages in the Book-O-Mormon suggest a SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH soteriology" when I have provided scripture verses that clearly states the opposite? Your claim that "Mormonism proper does NOT teach this,and your own equivocation back and forth has exemplified this to a great degree" yet offer absolutely nothing in support of this besides your say so? Either provide something of substance for me to respond to or just don't bother subs***uting your know nothing pronouncements on Mormonism as substantive arguments.

Father_JD

04-06-2009, 12:22 PM

What exactly have you offered in return besides nu-uh your wrong because my interpretation is always correct? Saying that my response carries no weight but offering no arguments in support of this in return?

Good point, M-dude. I guess we have to look at the full context of "Nephis" clearly-taught soteriology of faith + WORKS, don't we?

Saying that "other p***ages in the Book-O-Mormon suggest a SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH soteriology" when I have provided scripture verses that clearly states the opposite?

I disagree that they "clearly state", but do indeed suggest a works-free soteriology. The BOM does NOT teach distinctive Mormon doctrine and I think you know that:

1. God once a mortal schmoe who earned godhood.
2. The existence of other "true" deities.
3. Jesus is Lucifer's "spirit brother".
4. You too can become deity some day.

In fact, I'll grant you that the BOM has MORE historic Christian positions than in Mormonism itself.

Bottom line? The BOM contradicts MORE of Mormon teaching than it does historical Biblical doctrine. I'm not terribly surprised there are p***ages which are closer in agreement with the Biblical doctrine, but your problem is supporting a soteriology of BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH from the whole GAMUT of Mormon "scripture" and teaching. So, you wanna dance your little victory dance that the BOM isn't consistent in teaching a soteriology of Faith ALONE and NOT of works, by all means, happy dancing. :rolleyes:

Your claim that "Mormonism proper does NOT teach this,and your own equivocation back and forth has exemplified this to a great degree" yet you offer nothing in support of this besides your say so? Either provide something of substance for me to respond to or just don't bother subs***uting your know nothing pronouncements on Mormonism as substantive arguments.

Do I really need to remind you of our long exchanges on CARM in which you clearly contradicted yourself dozens of times??

You finally settled on a compromise of:

1. Works not done in faith do NOT save but...
2. Works that are done in faith DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS.

This still means you hold to faith + WORKS, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Mesenja

04-09-2009, 12:54 PM

Good point,M-dude. I guess we have to look at the full context of "Nephis" clearly-taught soteriology of faith + WORKS,don't we?

Yes let's take a look at the full context of this part of Nephi's sermon shall we? Soon after saying that "it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do" he clarifies this statement by explaining that "the law [of Moses] hath become dead unto us,and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith;yet we keep the law because of the commandments." Does he say that we are made alive spiritually because of "all [the works] we can do" that somehow makes up for our faith in Christ? No he states that "we are made alive in Christ because of our faith" as he is the source that we may "look for a remission of their sins."

I disagree that they "clearly state", but do indeed suggest a works-free soteriology. The Book of Mormon does NOT teach distinctive Mormon doctrine and I think you know that:

1. God once a mortal schmoe who earned godhood.
2. The existence of other "true" deities.
3. Jesus is Lucifer's "spirit brother".
4. You too can become deity some day.

In fact, I'll grant you that the Book of Mormon has MORE historic Christian positions than in Mormonism itself.

This objection that the Book of Mormon does not contain every doctrine that is unique to Mormonism is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The Book of Mormon teaches us that "no flesh can dwell in the presence of God,save it be through the merits,and mercy,and grace the Messiah" therefore it is expedient that we have "unshaken faith in him [Christ],relying wholly upon the merits of him [Christ] who is mighty to save." (2 Nephi 2:8;2 Nephi 31:19) It also says that our hope to be raised to life eternal is because of our faith in Christ. (Moroni 7:41) It is not due to our works as even "if ye should serve him [God] with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21)

Bottom line? The Book of Mormon contradicts MORE of Mormon teaching than it does historical Biblical doctrine. I'm not terribly surprised there are p***ages which are closer in agreement with the Biblical doctrine,but your problem is supporting a soteriology of BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH from the whole GAMUT of Mormon "scripture" and teaching. So,you wanna dance your little victory dance that the Book of Mormon isn't consistent in teaching a soteriology of Faith ALONE and NOT of works,by all means, happy dancing. :rolleyes:

Once again you have not supported any of your ***ertions with evidence. Also the Bible has never taught the soteriology of salvation by faith alone.

Do I really need to remind you of our long exchanges on CARM in which you clearly contradicted yourself dozens of times??

You finally settled on a compromise of:1. Works not done in faith do NOT save but...
2. Works that are done in faith DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS.

This still means you hold to faith + WORKS,doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Our works are the end result of God's grace to us and any merit we receive from them is God's gift to us in the form of increased grace and finally eternal life.

Father_JD

04-12-2009, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
Good point,M-dude. I guess we have to look at the full context of "Nephis" clearly-taught soteriology of faith + WORKS,don't we?

Yes let's take a look at the full context of this part of Nephi's sermon shall we? Soon after saying that "it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do" he clarifies this statement by explaining that "the law [of Moses] hath become dead unto us,and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith;yet we keep the law because of the commandments." Does he say that we are made alive spiritually because of "all [the works] we can do" that somehow makes up for our faith in Christ? No he states that "we are made alive in Christ because of our faith" as he is the source that we may "look for a remission of their sins."

No, he doesn't say that the works makes one "alive", but one is saved AFTER HAVING DONE ALL THE WORKS ONE CAN DO which still adds works into the soteriology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
I disagree that they "clearly state", but do indeed suggest a works-free soteriology. The Book of Mormon does NOT teach distinctive Mormon doctrine and I think you know that:

1. God once a mortal schmoe who earned godhood.
2. The existence of other "true" deities.
3. Jesus is Lucifer's "spirit brother".
4. You too can become deity some day.

In fact, I'll grant you that the Book of Mormon has MORE historic Christian positions than in Mormonism itself.

This objection that the Book of Mormon does not contain every doctrine that is unique to Mormonism is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The Book of Mormon teaches us that "no flesh can dwell in the presence of God,save it be through the merits,and mercy,and grace the Messiah" therefore it is expedient that we have "unshaken faith in him [Christ],relying wholly upon the merits of him [Christ] who is mighty to save." (2 Nephi 2:8;2 Nephi 31:19) It also says that our hope to be raised to life eternal is because of our faith in Christ. (Moroni 7:41) It is not due to our works as even "if ye should serve him [God] with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21)

It's hardly irrelevant when Mormons present semi-Biblical doctrine from the BOM which they themselves DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE OF OTHER SUPPOSED MORMON LATTER-DAY REVELATION.

The BOM teaches there is ONLY ONE GOD...but we KNOW that's NOT WHAT YOU BELIEVE, M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
Bottom line? The Book of Mormon contradicts MORE of Mormon teaching than it does historical Biblical doctrine. I'm not terribly surprised there are p***ages which are closer in agreement with the Biblical doctrine,but your problem is supporting a soteriology of BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH from the whole GAMUT of Mormon "scripture" and teaching. So,you wanna dance your little victory dance that the Book of Mormon isn't consistent in teaching a soteriology of Faith ALONE and NOT of works,by all means, happy dancing.

Once again you have not supported any of your ***ertions with evidence. Also the Bible has never taught the soteriology of salvation by faith alone.

You've done it yet again, M. Write above that works do NOT CAUSE ONE TO HAVE SALVATION, and here you're affirming the OPPOSITE: Salvation by faith + WORKS and apparently you don't know how to read Romans 3-5, Gal. 3, Eph. 2 in context when it's abundantly clear that SALVATION IS BY GRACE ALONE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE. It's the FAITH that justifies one, NOT THE WORKS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
Do I really need to remind you of our long exchanges on CARM in which you clearly contradicted yourself dozens of times??

You finally settled on a compromise of:1. Works not done in faith do NOT save but...
2. Works that are done in faith DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SALVIVIC PROCESS.

This still means you hold to faith + WORKS,doesn't it?

Our works are the end result of God's grace to us and any merit we receive from them is God's gift to us in the form of increased grace and finally eternal life.

Do you even read what you write?? In a nutshell what you've just written:

Works result in merit in the form of...eternal life.

You just affirmed faith +WORKS.

Amazing you can't see how you contradict yourself at every turn, M. :eek:

Mesenja

05-20-2009, 10:16 PM

Hey,I'm merely showing you the NORM,which was MONOGAMY which is evident EVEN in Genesis. I've already conceded that God ALLOWED polygamy in OT times,but it's CLEAR that was NOT His intention NOR the NORM. You're forced to take your Mormonesque cues from the OT,and blithely IGNORE THE NT WHICH DENOUNCES POLYGAMY. :rolleyes:

He said through his prophet Nathan to David a polygamist with 7 wives "And I gave thee thy master's house,and thy master's wives into thy bosom,and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah;and if that had been too little,I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." [2 Samuel 12:8] Not only did God give David his masters wives but went even further and said that He would have given David even more. What stopped this from happening was David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba,the wife of Uriah the Hit***e. However according to the argument you just gave me the ins***ution of polygamy was not his original intention concerning marriage and it went against the norms that God originally set.

jade84116

05-21-2009, 04:39 PM

Go to http://cogeternal.org/articleform.htm to request a free copy of their article en***led Polygamy—Is It a Blessing or a Curse? if you really want to know the truth about polygamy. It should also be noted that the Mormons support polygamy as a result of D&C 132, but D&C 42:22 states: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." I defy the Mormons to square D&C 132 with that one. They also quote Jacob 2:30 to the effect that polygamy is needed to "raise up seed" contrary to all of the condemnations of polygamy from cover to cover in the Book of Mormon and it's overall story of several migrations to the America's with them starting whole new civilizations with one wife each, square that fact with Jacob 2:30.:)

Father_JD

05-26-2009, 03:54 PM

Duh, M. Try reading the Bible. Did God created Adam and Eve...and Susie, Harriet, Julie in the Garden, or was it JUST ONE MAN and just ONE WOMAN FOR THAT MAN??

Or consider this:

Genesis 2:24 (King James Version)

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

That was God's NORM.

Father_JD

05-26-2009, 03:57 PM

You've conflated Jesus' reply without looking at the ORIGINAL CONTEXT of the p***age:

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The Biblical NORM was established as one man, one woman although God permitted polygamy in OT times.

You have NO case for a continuation of a practice which God STOPPED permitting by the NT era.

Father_JD

05-26-2009, 04:01 PM

It's already been addressed:

Gen. 2 gives the CONTEXT which is intended as the NORM:

One woman for one man.

The permission was RESCINDED in the NT era.

FYI...there are several OTHER instances in scripture where God's PERFECT will was REJECTED and a PERMISSIVE will was given:

Israel was NOT TO HAVE EARTHLY KINGS.

Every first-born Israelite was to have priesthood privileges (but altered by God Himself because of Israel's sin with the "Golden Calf" incident)

Marriage was to be life-long, but then God ALLOWED divorce under certain circumstances.

HickPreacher

05-26-2009, 04:47 PM

He said through his prophet Nathan to David a polygamist with 7 wives "And I gave thee thy master's house,and thy master's wives into thy bosom,and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah;and if that had been too little,I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." [2 Samuel 12:8] Not only did God give David his masters wives but went even further and said that He would have given David even more. What stopped this from happening was David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba,the wife of Uriah the Hit***e. However according to the argument you just gave me the ins***ution of polygamy was not his original intention concerning marriage and it went against the norms that God originally set.

During the transfer of ruling powers due to war or a takeover-- the new King would take control of the previous King's household. Saul did the same when he took power, if you study the text and its history beyond the simple mentioning of "Wives" you will see even a previous King's daughters were listed as "Wives". These guys were not actually married to these "Wives"-- the term seems to be loosely used to denote all adult female's of the King's household. See http://www.godswordtowomen.org/lesson_75.htm

alanmolstad

03-26-2014, 06:24 AM

This subject was one that was especially bothersome to me and one of the main reasons I ended up leaving the church.

Why did Joseph have himself sealed to girls as young as 14?

Im going to have to look at the evidence myself.
If this turns out to be true, if the guy did take a girl that young, then this would be a clear case of RAPE and its a darn good thing they shot him...

Heck I would have shot him* had it been my daughter or sister...

But I have not seen any proof of him doing such a thing, so I will have to put things to the test.

(* castration would also be acceptable for such a crime )

James Banta

03-26-2014, 08:19 AM

Im going to have to look at the evidence myself.
If this turns out to be true, if the guy did take a girl that young, then this would be a clear case of RAPE and its a darn good thing they shot him...

Heck I would have shot him* had it been my daughter or sister...

But I have not seen any proof of him doing such a thing, so I will have to put things to the test.

(* castration would also be acceptable for such a crime )

Todd Compton did all the research for us and put it in his book "In Sacred Loneliness". If you need to see the full corruption that Smith became involved, please get a copy of that book and read at least exploits of Joseph Smith.. Remember Oliver Cowdry insisted on the insertion of section 101 of the 1837 D&C because of the Smith "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" speaking of his improper activities with the 16 year old Fanny Alger.

You can also see the history of the polygamy of Smith at http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/. There you will see that Smith married 7 girls under 18 years old, two of which were just 14.. Most of these marriages were secret defying the command given in section 132 of the modern D&C. Which teaches:

D&C 132:61
And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

If Smith took other wives without the conceit of Emma then he, Smith, committed adultery, and because he never confessed that adultery as sin, taking it to Jesus, that sin is still on him and will be the cause of his ****ation.. Just the act of marrying these girls was enough to convict him. After all did the Lord teach us that:

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I have to have someone tell me how marrying a 14 year old girl isn't based in anything more than lust.. Isn't this a good reason for Cowdry to call Smith's sin a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair."(Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 26-28, 34-35, 38-39.) ? IHS jim