Which mormon religion is the 'right' one? [Archive]

Christian

05-05-2015, 04:12 PM

You seem to have some problem with your comprehension skills... The COJCOLDS never fractured or divided. There were only people who no longer wanted to be part of the COJCOLDS, who then left to form their own church... Like the RLDS. The RLDS fractured because the RLDS ended and ceased to exist. The COJCOLDS has not lost leadership nor ceased to exist.

According to GOD, Christ's church never fractured either. The Apostle John had it right when he said:

1 John 2:18-1918 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

When Groups of folks leave CHRISTIANITY (as the romans left CHRISTIANITY), nothing in CHRISTIANITY is 'fractured' at all. When some folks leave those apostate groups and find their way back into CHRIST'S sheepfold, the sheepfold is still being cared for by the GOOD SHEPHERD, Jesus Christ, just as it was before the apostate group left..

But Jesus was VERY CLEAR about some things. Jesus told us:

Matt 24:24-25
24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
NKJV
Matt 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
NKJV

Erundur

05-05-2015, 05:28 PM

According to GOD, Christ's church never fractured either.
God didn't say that.

When Groups of folks leave CHRISTIANITY
Like when Luther et al. left Christianity to invent Protestantism?

teenapenny

05-05-2015, 05:59 PM

God didn't say that.

Like when Luther et al. left Christianity to invent Protestantism?
Says who? Are you stating that Protestantism is not Christian?

Christian

05-05-2015, 11:16 PM

erunder posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianAccording to GOD, Christ's church never fractured either.

God didn't say that.

God DID say:

1 John 2:18-1918 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

Please SHOW US THE FRACTURE when apostates left CHRIST'S church. Of course you cannot; it isn't there.

Like when Luther et al. left Christianity to invent Protestantism?

When Luther left the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, the rcc was already apostate and had LEFT CHRISTIANITY.

You are confuse. Luther went back to BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. It was JOEY SMITH who invented the new religion.

Please get your facts straight. Joey smith's religion was not around in the 1,500's Or in the original church, the one JESUS CHRIST BUILT. It was joey smith who invented a new religion.

As Jay Leno would say about your claim, "HOW STUPID IS THAT?"

BTW the RCC invented the word 'protestantism' to have a dumping place in which to categorize ALL NON CATHOLICS including mormons, mooneys, and branch davidians as well as GENUINE CHRISTIANS.

You really should get your terms straight too.

Christian

05-05-2015, 11:17 PM

Says who? Are you stating that Protestantism is not Christian?

the rcc slang term includes mormonism and other NON Christian cults, so he is PARTLY correct in that respect.

Erundur

05-06-2015, 12:04 AM

God DID say:
But he didn't say what you claimed.

Please SHOW US THE FRACTURE when apostates left CHRIST'S church.
The Protestant reformation, for one.

When Luther left the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, the rcc was already apostate and had LEFT CHRISTIANITY.
So are you telling us that Christ's church had fractured?

dberrie2000

05-15-2015, 07:04 PM

Funny thing. . .He NEVER ONCE MENTIONED
an aaronic priesthood[B][COLOR=#008000] in the CHRISTIAN church.

Christ never mentioned any "priesthood" term in His NT ministry. Does that mean this is a false priesthood?

1 Peter 2:5-9---King James Version (KJV)
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Christian

05-26-2015, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Christian

Funny thing. . .He NEVER ONCE MENTIONED an aaronic priesthood in the CHRISTIAN church.

Christ never mentioned any "priesthood" term in His NT ministry. Does that mean this is a false priesthood?

1 Peter 2:5-9---King James Version (KJV)
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

PETER, HIS APOSTLE tells us about THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD that EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE holds. BUT HE NEVER ONCE MENTIONED EVEN ONE AARONIC PRIEST IN CHRIST'S CHURCH.

Are you calling the Apostle Peter a LIAR?

The TRUTH is that the AARONIC PRIESTHOOD was NEVER PART OF CHRIST's church at all. Indeed most of those in it would not have qualified (wrong lineages).

Besides, CHRIST'S church didn't need it. . .JESUS was the ONLY sacrifice to be made, and HE MADE IT. No lambs, goats, rams, or turtledoves, no wave offerings, heave offerings or other offerings that the Aaronic priests had to make. . .JUST JESUS, and JESUS ALONE!

Your cult's imaginary made-up 'priesthoods' and 'priesthood authority' etc are nothing more or less than INVENTIONS by joey smith.

Christian

05-26-2015, 04:39 PM

erunder posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianGod DID say:

But he didn't say what you claimed.

What I claimed was:

1 John 2:18-1918 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

What do you think I DID say that was 'different?'

Please SHOW US THE FRACTURE when apostates left CHRIST'S church.

The Protestant reformation, for one.

So when people leave a false religion (such as your own) then all of CHRISTIANITY is 'fractured?'
NOT according to the p***age above!

When Luther left the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, the rcc was already apostate and had LEFT CHRISTIANITY.

So are you telling us that Christ's church had fractured?

Are you 'reading challenged?' No, I am pointing out that that some 'followers of' Christianity (the catholic religion) had left it.

John told us in the p***age above what it demonstrated. THOSE particular folks wee neer 'of us.'

When all those 150+ groups left joe smith's religion, was YOUR religion 'fractured?' Or were they just people who no longer believed what joe taught and left? Like bringum young did.

Christian

05-30-2015, 06:33 AM

According to Martin Luther, Christianity didn't exist anymore, not just fractured, due to the false additions to the gospel the Roman Catholic Church made such as the trinity.

According to joey smith, little men live on the moon, dressed like quakers.

So what?

Please CITE US ONE PLACE where Martin Luther said any such thing. BETCHA CAN'T.

Of course if he ever had, he would be just as wrong as joey smith was. :rolleyes:

Phoenix

05-30-2015, 11:00 AM

According to joey smith, little men live on the moon, dressed like quakers.

I think the truth is that according to YOU, joey smith said that. Why should we believe you?

theway

05-30-2015, 11:09 AM

L

According to joey smith, little men live on the moon, dressed like quakers.

So what?

Please CITE US ONE PLACE where Martin Luther said any such thing. BETCHA CAN'T.

Of course if he ever had, he would be just as wrong as joey smith was. :rolleyes:Have you ever stated anything on this forum which has been correct?
Please show evidence where Joseph Smith ever said that there were little men living on the moon???

Hint: the fourth-hand erroneous quote to which you are referring said the men on the moon were 6 foot high, not "little men".... What's ironic is that you can't even tell your lie truthfully.

Christian

05-30-2015, 04:51 PM

LHave you ever stated anything on this forum which has been correct?
Please show evidence where Joseph Smith ever said that there were little men living on the moon???

Hint: the fourth-hand erroneous quote to which you are referring said the men on the moon were 6 foot high, not "little men".... What's ironic is that you can't even tell your lie truthfully.

HINT: the THIRD HAND quote (according to FAIR) was from a MORMON source, not me.

Sorry, but YOUR OWN statement is erroneous

http://pool.fairmormon.org/images/thumb/a/a2/FairMormon-Answers-logo.png/300px-FairMormon-Answers-logo.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/File:FairMormon-Answers-logo.png)

PERSPECTIVES (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives)

MEDIA (http://www.fairmormon.org/media)

QUESTIONS (http://www.fairmormon.org/contact-fairmormon)

RESOURCES (http://www.fairmormon.org/resources)

2014 CONFERENCE (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference)

Did Joseph Smith teach that the moon was inhabited?

Questions and Answers

Question: Did Joseph Smith state that the moon was inhabited, and that it's inhabitants were dressed like Quakers?

This is not a quote from Joseph Smith, but rather a late, third-hand account of something that Joseph is supposed to have said

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said. [1] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-1) Hyrum Smith [2] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-2) and Brigham Young [3] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-3) both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited.
A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient." [4] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-4)
Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine:
As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style. [5] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-5)

So, it would seem that the idea of an inhabited moon or other celestial body was not foreign to at least some early LDS members. It is not clear whether the idea originated with Joseph Smith.
In the 1800s, the idea that the moon was inhabited was considered scientific fact by many

However, it should be remembered that this concept was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel), the discoverer of the planet Ur****, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'" [6] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-6)
Other scientists announced that they had discovered "a lunar city with a collection of gigantic ramparts extending 23 miles in either direction." [7] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-7)
The 1835 Great Moon Hoax added to the belief in lunar inhabitants

In addition to these pronouncements from some of the most prominent scientists of the day, a clever hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax) in 1835 only added to the belief in lunar inhabitants.
John Herschel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frederick_William_Herschel), son of the famous William, went to South Africa to study stars visible only in the southern hemisphere. This was the cause of considerable public interest, given Herschel's involvement. (William Herschel was the preeminent astronomer of his generation. He had discovered Ur****, and was also of the view that the moon was inhabited. [8] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-8)
On 23 August 1835, Richard Locke published the first article in the New York Sun of what purported to be reports from Herschel's observations. Over a total of six installments (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax1.html), Locke claimed that Herschel was reporting lunar flowers, forests, bison, goats, unicorns, bipedal tailless beavers who cooked with fire, and (most provocatively) flying men with wings:
They appeared to be constantly engaged in conversing, with much imp***ioned gesticulation; and hence it was inferred, that they are rational beings. Others, apparently of a higher order, were discovered afterwards. . . . And finally a magnificent temple for the worship of God, of polished sapphire, in a triangle shape, with a roof of gold. [9] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-9)

These reports were widely believed and caused a minor sensation. They were carried in the Painsville Telegraph, adjacent to Mormon Kirtland. [10] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-10) The Sun eventually hinted that the matter was a hoax:
Certain correspondents have been urging us to come out and confess the whole to be a hoax; but this we can by no means do, until we have the testimony of the English or Scotch papers to corroborate such a declaration. [11] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-11)

Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades after the hoax

No more than this was forthcoming, and the Painsville Telegraph made no mention of the possibility of a hoax. Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades. Herschel initially found the episode amusing, but he eventually grew frustrated with having to continually explain to the public that the whole matter was a hoax, with which he had nothing to do: he would later refer "the whole affair as 'incoherent ravings'". [12] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-12)
In a private letter, Hirschel's wife indicated how skillfully the hoax was carried out:
Margaret Herschel was more amused. She called the story 'a very clever peice of imagination,' and wrote appreciately..."The whole description is so well clenched with minute details of workmanship...that the New Yorkists were not to be blamed for actually believing it as they did...." [13] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-13)

. . .The Church does not take an official position on this issue

The bottom line is that joey smith and brigham young and other of your 'prophets' believed there were men on the moon, dressed as quakers. . .

And they believed that Jesus was a 'spirit-brother' of satan, both their 'jesus' and 'satan' being spirit children of their 'heavenly father.'

The BIBLE says otherwise. The BIBLE says that Jesus CREATED the angels and everything else. BUT NOT ONE WORD about God 'fathering' everyone or the angels as 'spirit children.' NOT ONE.

Your 'prophet' made all of that dung up himself.

Phoenix

05-30-2015, 07:53 PM

alanmolstad

05-31-2015, 06:17 AM

PETER, HIS APOSTLE tells us about THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD that EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE holds. BUT HE NEVER ONCE MENTIONED EVEN ONE AARONIC PRIEST IN CHRIST'S CHURCH.

Are you calling the Apostle Peter a LIAR?

The TRUTH is that the AARONIC PRIESTHOOD was NEVER PART OF CHRIST's church at all. Indeed most of those in it would not have qualified (wrong lineages).

Besides, CHRIST'S church didn't need it. . .JESUS was the ONLY sacrifice to be made, and HE MADE IT. No lambs, goats, rams, or turtledoves, no wave offerings, heave offerings or other offerings that the Aaronic priests had to make. . .JUST JESUS, and JESUS ALONE!

Your cult's imaginary made-up 'priesthoods' and 'priesthood authority' etc are nothing more or less than INVENTIONS by joey smith.

This is correct.

There is a constant need men have to be seen as the "path" but what they are pushing is that only they have the "authority"
Be it like the catholic church and the Pope and their line back to Peter, or a non-Christian CULT that has their own means to trace their leadership back to some guy in the past.

I just point out that in the Bible we have a clear teaching from Christ that all that stuff about needing to be "in the line going back to Peter" is silly...

Remember the story where the Disciples told Jesus that had stopped a guy from preaching about Christ because he was not part of the Disciples walking with Jesus?....Jesus told his guys NOT to stop the other guy from preaching.

So this is a clear teaching from Christ himself that teachers and Preachers don't have to worry about tracing their line back to Peter.

It only matters that what you teach or Preach is in agreement with Peter and Christ and the Disciples, not that you received your leadership credentials from Peter....

theway

05-31-2015, 10:01 AM

This is correct.

There is a constant need men have to be seen as the "path" but what they are pushing is that only they have the "authority"
Be it like the catholic church and the Pope and their line back to Peter, or a non-Christian CULT that has their own means to trace their leadership back to some guy in the past.

I just point out that in the Bible we have a clear teaching from Christ that all that stuff about needing to be "in the line going back to Peter" is silly...

Remember the story where the Disciples told Jesus that had stopped a guy from preaching about Christ because he was not part of the Disciples walking with Jesus?....Jesus told his guys NOT to stop the other guy from preaching.

So this is a clear teaching from Christ himself that teachers and Preachers don't have to worry about tracing their line back to Peter.

It only matters that what you teach or Preach is in agreement with Peter and Christ and the Disciples, not that you received your leadership credentials from Peter....Really? Taking your reasoning, I would have thought the clear meaning is that one doesn't have to be a follower or disciple of Christ.

Christian

06-01-2015, 11:23 AM

Really? Taking your reasoning, I would have thought the clear meaning is that one doesn't have to be a follower or disciple of Christ.

OF COURSE nobody has to be a follower or disciple of Christ. Mormons aren't. Branch davidians aren't. White supremecists aren't. Muslims aren't. BUT OF COURSE these groups don't teach the TRUTH either.

NOBODY is forced to follow the REAL Jesus anywhere.

BUT

YOU neglected alanmolstad's summary:

ORIGINALL POSTED BY alanmolstad:
So this is a clear teaching from Christ himself that teachers and Preachers don't have to worry about tracing their line back to Peter.

It only matters that what you teach or Preach is in agreement with Peter and Christ and the Disciples, not that you received your leadership credentials from Peter....

alanmolstad was speaking CLEARLY of CHRISTIANS, not mormons, catholics, branch davidians, white supremecists, OR muslims.

The TRUTH is that teaching the TRUTH is what matters, not what your credentials are.

Reading comprehension seems to elude you.

Christian

06-01-2015, 11:32 AM

but the fairmormon article you quoted proves you wrong. don't you realize that? or are you just praying that no one besides yourself will realize it?

you: "According to joey smith, little men live on the moon, dressed like quakers."

the article you quoted: "This is not a quote from Joseph Smith, but rather a late, third-hand account of something that Joseph is supposed to have said.

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble."

ALL of whom were followers of smith. Doesn't matter anyway. . .

joey smith made up a religion which SPLINTERED 150+ times in less than 200 years. NOBODY SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WHY WE SHOULD BELIEVE THE UTAH BUNCH IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER 149+ 'SPLINTERS,' OR that it has any more "authority from God," or in TRUTH ANY AUTHORITY FROM GOD AT ALL!

Phoenix

06-01-2015, 12:05 PM

ALL of whom were followers of smith. Doesn't matter anyway. . .

so it doesn't matter whether or not you made a false statement?

who is correct? the person who once claimed that he once heard someone else once say that Joseph Smith said the moon was inhabited?

or

the person who said "According to joey smith, little men live on the moon, dressed like quakers" ?

or neither?

my opinion is that the old guy who said that someone once told him that he heard Joseph Smith say the moon was inhabited, either had a faulty memory, or the person who told him the story got it wrong, or Joseph Smith was being sarcastic.

theway

06-01-2015, 01:13 PM

YOU neglected alanmolstad's summary:

alanmolstad was speaking CLEARLY of CHRISTIANS, not mormons, catholics, branch davidians, white supremecists, OR muslims.

The TRUTH is that teaching the TRUTH is what matters, not what your credentials are.

Reading comprehension seems to elude you.i don't know whether your biggest problem is your reading skills or your logic???
I simply pointed out that....... Wait..... I started to explain it to you, and your contradictions in your last post, however I thought "what's the point?"

theway

06-01-2015, 01:27 PM

HINT: the THIRD HAND quote (according to FAIR) was from a MORMON source, not me.

Sorry, but YOUR OWN statement is erroneous

http://pool.fairmormon.org/images/thumb/a/a2/FairMormon-Answers-logo.png/300px-FairMormon-Answers-logo.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/File:FairMormon-Answers-logo.png)

PERSPECTIVES (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives)

MEDIA (http://www.fairmormon.org/media)

QUESTIONS (http://www.fairmormon.org/contact-fairmormon)

RESOURCES (http://www.fairmormon.org/resources)

2014 CONFERENCE (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference)

Did Joseph Smith teach that the moon was inhabited?

Questions and Answers

Question: Did Joseph Smith state that the moon was inhabited, and that it's inhabitants were dressed like Quakers?

This is not a quote from Joseph Smith, but rather a late, third-hand account of something that Joseph is supposed to have said

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said. [1] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-1) Hyrum Smith [2] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-2) and Brigham Young [3] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-3) both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited.
A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient." [4] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-4)
Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine:
As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style. [5] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-5)

So, it would seem that the idea of an inhabited moon or other celestial body was not foreign to at least some early LDS members. It is not clear whether the idea originated with Joseph Smith.
In the 1800s, the idea that the moon was inhabited was considered scientific fact by many

However, it should be remembered that this concept was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel), the discoverer of the planet Ur****, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'" [6] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-6)
Other scientists announced that they had discovered "a lunar city with a collection of gigantic ramparts extending 23 miles in either direction." [7] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-7)
The 1835 Great Moon Hoax added to the belief in lunar inhabitants

In addition to these pronouncements from some of the most prominent scientists of the day, a clever hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax) in 1835 only added to the belief in lunar inhabitants.
John Herschel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frederick_William_Herschel), son of the famous William, went to South Africa to study stars visible only in the southern hemisphere. This was the cause of considerable public interest, given Herschel's involvement. (William Herschel was the preeminent astronomer of his generation. He had discovered Ur****, and was also of the view that the moon was inhabited. [8] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-8)
On 23 August 1835, Richard Locke published the first article in the New York Sun of what purported to be reports from Herschel's observations. Over a total of six installments (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax1.html), Locke claimed that Herschel was reporting lunar flowers, forests, bison, goats, unicorns, bipedal tailless beavers who cooked with fire, and (most provocatively) flying men with wings:
They appeared to be constantly engaged in conversing, with much imp***ioned gesticulation; and hence it was inferred, that they are rational beings. Others, apparently of a higher order, were discovered afterwards. . . . And finally a magnificent temple for the worship of God, of polished sapphire, in a triangle shape, with a roof of gold. [9] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-9)

These reports were widely believed and caused a minor sensation. They were carried in the Painsville Telegraph, adjacent to Mormon Kirtland. [10] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-10) The Sun eventually hinted that the matter was a hoax:
Certain correspondents have been urging us to come out and confess the whole to be a hoax; but this we can by no means do, until we have the testimony of the English or Scotch papers to corroborate such a declaration. [11] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-11)

Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades after the hoax

No more than this was forthcoming, and the Painsville Telegraph made no mention of the possibility of a hoax. Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades. Herschel initially found the episode amusing, but he eventually grew frustrated with having to continually explain to the public that the whole matter was a hoax, with which he had nothing to do: he would later refer "the whole affair as 'incoherent ravings'". [12] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-12)
In a private letter, Hirschel's wife indicated how skillfully the hoax was carried out:
Margaret Herschel was more amused. She called the story 'a very clever peice of imagination,' and wrote appreciately..."The whole description is so well clenched with minute details of workmanship...that the New Yorkists were not to be blamed for actually believing it as they did...." [13] (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/#cite_note-13)

. . .The Church does not take an official position on this issue

The bottom line is that joey smith and brigham young and other of your 'prophets' believed there were men on the moon, dressed as quakers. . .

And they believed that Jesus was a 'spirit-brother' of satan, both their 'jesus' and 'satan' being spirit children of their 'heavenly father.'

The BIBLE says otherwise. The BIBLE says that Jesus CREATED the angels and everything else. BUT NOT ONE WORD about God 'fathering' everyone or the angels as 'spirit children.' NOT ONE.

Your 'prophet' made all of that dung up himself.LOL... I fail to see how posting quotes that prove me right helps your false argument any???

Oh well.... Turn-about would be the only fair thing to do, so I will quote from an Anti Mormon site about the rumor of Joseph Smith believing that there were men on the moon....

MRM, Early Mormon Leaders on the Inhabitants of the Sun and Moon
"All things considered, the argument that Smith actually taught such things about moon men is probably not strong enough to use. While evidence suggests that Dibble was probably recounting things from one of his own experiences with Joseph Smith, it is not conclusive. If non-Mormons are going to appeal to Huntington's claim as found in the official Mormon publication, they should do so with caution, context, and qualification."
LOL.... It seems that no self respecting AntiMormon would use this lie.

So what is the context? The context is that Huntington never got a blessing from Joseph Smith, he got it from his own father.... That alone distroys the whole credibility of his statement... And your argument!

Phoenix

06-01-2015, 03:49 PM

theway, thanks for that mrm quote. the story must be really unreliable and questionable if mrm even is afraid to endorse it.

good info to store in the old computer files.....

Christian

06-03-2015, 04:13 PM

so it doesn't matter whether or not you made a false statement?

who is correct? the person who once claimed that he once heard someone else once say that Joseph Smith said the moon was inhabited?

or

the person who said "According to joey smith, little men live on the moon, dressed like quakers" ?

or neither?

my opinion is that the old guy who said that someone once told him that he heard Joseph Smith say the moon was inhabited, either had a faulty memory, or the person who told him the story got it wrong, or Joseph Smith was being sarcastic.

You are of course referring to 'that old (MORMON) guy. Why should we ***ume EITHER of your excuses, just because it is CONVENIENT TO YOU?

Sorry, but what is NOT convenient to you is the FACT that a MORMON reported it, ANOTHER commented on it, AND YOUR MORMON FRIENDS ACCEPTED IT.

How much of joey smith's OTHER junk is just as stupid?

Phoenix

06-03-2015, 07:27 PM

You are of course referring to 'that old (MORMON) guy.
his name was Oliver B. Huntington. why do you trust the hearsay that he reported as if it's as true and reliable as the Book of Matthew? has the holy ghost told you that philo dibble really told huntington this tale, and that dibble knew what he was talking about? and has the holy ghost told you that huntington, writing decades later about what he was told, remembered the info correctly and wrote it down accurately?

give us some good reasons why you put so much faith in the words of a faithful mormon. do you really believe that mormons are so honest that you can blindly trust their hearsay stories without even doing research into the stories to see if they are true?

alanmolstad

06-04-2015, 04:26 AM

I would like to hear more of the testimony of Mr. Oliver B. Huntington......

Christian

06-04-2015, 07:21 AM

his name was Oliver B. Huntington. why do you trust the hearsay that he reported as if it's as true and reliable as the Book of Matthew? has the holy ghost told you that philo dibble really told huntington this tale, and that dibble knew what he was talking about? and has the holy ghost told you that huntington, writing decades later about what he was told, remembered the info correctly and wrote it down accurately?

give us some good reasons why you put so much faith in the words of a faithful mormon. do you really believe that mormons are so honest that you can blindly trust their hearsay stories without even doing research into the stories to see if they are true?

Give us some HONEST reasons why YOU don't want to accept information from YOUR MORMON PEERS, and want to discount that information just because it doesn't fit your own paradigm?

Christian

06-04-2015, 07:23 AM

I thought that was self explanatory, the RLDS ceased to exist when it fractured into many different groups with differing doctrines in the 1980s, with one of those groups taking on the name of the Community of Christ.

You mean like the utah mormons ceased to exist when the fundamentalists left, FRACTURING smith's religion even further?

Remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. . .

Phoenix

06-04-2015, 03:59 PM

Give us some HONEST reasons why YOU don't want to accept information from YOUR MORMON PEERS, and want to discount that information just because it doesn't fit your own paradigm?
so you think the following reasons for being skeptical of the accuracy of what Huntington wrote in his journal, are DISHONEST reasons:

1--he claims some other guy (dibble) is the main source for his claim, so right there it is hearsay.
2--he wrote his journal in the 1880s, when he was about 60 years old, but the thing he was writing about dates back, he says, to 1837, when huntington (born 1823) would have been about 14 years old.
3--"there is nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith or those who recorded his words prior to his death that even hints of any these views about inhabitants on the moon." http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm
4--huntington bases some of his info on the blessing he got when he was a kid (10, 13, or 14 years old, depending on the source you rely on) that he claims, in his journal, he received from Joseph Smith's dad when the actual record of blessings shows that it huntington's dad who gave him the blessing.

which of those reasons are dishonest ones?

now explain why you are blindly believing, despite the evidence against it, that huntington's journal claim is true.
he couldn't even remember that it was his own dad who gave him the blessing.

give us some honest reasons why you aren't skeptical of huntington's story. won't your antimormon friends hate you for putting so much faith in the words of a faithful mormon man's claims?

alanmolstad

06-04-2015, 04:10 PM

Christian, can you post a link or tell me more about this teaching of Smith's about men in the moon?

Phoenix

06-04-2015, 05:11 PM

Christian, can you post a link or tell me more about this teaching of Smith's about men in the moon?

here is a pro-lds site's article about it: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm
Here is the anti-lds site's article on it:http://www.mrm.org/moon-men

alanmolstad

06-04-2015, 05:21 PM

are there any websites that can prove 100% that Smith never taught such a screwy idea?

alanmolstad

06-04-2015, 05:54 PM

How do you prove a negative?
Im sure Christian would know of such a website if it actually exists....

Im sure if it don't there is a good reason for that as well....

alanmolstad

06-04-2015, 06:06 PM

Once again, how do you prove a negative?
I will just see what christian has to say on the matter....
Im sure if there was some proof that Smith never said such things that Christian will know where to find a link or such to the info...
Lets give the person time to return to our forum and time to respond....

alanmolstad

06-04-2015, 06:30 PM

"Alan told His Grand father that men live inside the moon in 2012"

"No, I never did"

"Can you Prove you didn't say that to your dad?"

"Yes, My dad died in 1994"

alanmolstad

06-04-2015, 06:49 PM

there is also the idea of taking a stand against some things, regardless of the importance of the person who says them.

Example:....Lets say i go to a church that was started by the great and powerful Oz.
Lets say that the religion I go to holds that The great and powerful Oz was a man who was both prophet and seer. AND...that his word is the same as God's word.

Then lets say that some guy comes out and says that Oz once taught some weird **** about men on the moon, and that these moom men wear their underwear on the outside of their pants to check to make sure everyone changes their underwear every day.

Now, what should me response to this wild claim be?

I can only tell you what I think I would do in this situation....I would say that "If it ever came out that Oz said this, I would totally reject all of the guy's other teachings because clearly the guy has turned out to be a nut case"

In other words....I take a stand against "error" regardless of who says the error.....
I dont make room for anyone who claims to be a "prophet" to be just a little "wacky"

Its the same as when I was debating a person in a CULT a few years ago on this forum, and they were saying that there "Was no proof" they their CULT's founder ever married a 14 year old girl.

So I asked them that if it ever came out later that the CULT's founder did actually marry a 14 year old girl, would that cause them to reject all of his teachings because he was now clearly a pedophile?

The person i was debating paused.....they did not want to answer that question directly....

And do you know why?.....I think I do.
They were allowing the CULT's founder to be a little "wacky"

yes, they didn't believe right now he was "wacky",,,but they were allowing him to be so as to not be painted into a corner later if it comes out that he was a pedophile.

its the same now too with the men on the moon stuff.
You see the same types allowing for the stuff said about Joe Smith and Moon Men to be actually true...

You dont see Smith's believers sayng, "If it ever came out that Smith taught this i would consider him a nut case and totally reject all they he taught"

They dont say that because they have to allow for the fact that Smith was correctly quoted .....

and if that turns out to be true, they dont want to be painted into a corner .

Phoenix

06-05-2015, 07:33 PM

are there any websites that can prove 100% that Smith never taught such a screwy idea?

Can you prove that St. John never taught that angels live in the Sun?

alanmolstad

06-05-2015, 08:10 PM

Can you prove that St. John never taught that angels live in the Sun?

I don't think John claimed to be a Prophet....

perhaps im wrong about that, what does the Bible say?
Its important because the standard we hold people to that claim to be prophets is far different than others...

Was John a Prophet?....
(You can google the question if you like)

So I was speaking of people that actually dare to use the term "prophet"....I have a very quick trigger when it comes to the idea of a "False Prophet"....

I dont give the benefit of the doubt to such people...

You are either a true prophet, or its all BS....

See, thats the thing I have against Joe smith...and mostly against all the Mormons I have ever ran into .
Its the idea that they simple always allow for the 'odd chance" that Smith was doing the "nasty" with little girls around age 14.

They might not believe its true, but they simply don't take a stand against the idea itself on the chance later that it turns out to be true.

I saw this all play out on this forum over the last years.
There were a bunch of posters that defended their CULT's founding leadership and the idea that he had sex with little girls.
They would argue against the idea until they were blue in the face...they kept asking for "Where is the proof?"!!!!

But when they were asked to agree that if Their founder actually did have sex with 14 year old girls that this would cause them to abandon their false religion?....

They would not agree....

Soi right now, They might not think their founder was into kinky sex with underage girls, but they would not agree to quit their faith in the future on the chance he was...

In other words, they would not bet their faith on the morality of their founder.

So they cover their answers with words that provide some "wiggle room" should it come out that yes, their religion's founder was actually into lots of sex with many different women, and yes also with underage little girls too!

Phoenix

06-06-2015, 10:42 AM

I don't think John claimed to be a Prophet....
you don't trust the Bible where it claims that John prophesied and predicted future events?

perhaps im wrong about that, what does the Bible say?
it says that John was a man chosen by Christ Himself to write predictions of the future. so what the bible says, is that john was a prophet. why don't you believe the bible?

let's just pretend that you believe the bible's claim that john was a prophet. now, what if there were people saying that john claimed to have seen angels in the Sun? which of the following would you do, if you believed that john was a prophet?

1--abandon your belief that john was a prophet because of a rumor that you heard
2--continue to believe that john was a prophet, despite rumors that he said something that makes him seem like a kook.

which choice would you make?

alanmolstad

06-06-2015, 11:04 AM

Again....I don't think John ever called himself a "prophet"

You can Google it if you like to confirm

Phoenix

06-08-2015, 06:57 AM

Again....I don't think John ever called himself a "prophet"

Do YOU believe that John was a prophet?
yes or no?

and would YOU stop believing he was a prophet if he said something as kooky as "I saw an angel in the Sun"?
yes or no?

how crazy-sounding of a thing could he say and you'd still believe he was a prophet?

alanmolstad

06-08-2015, 10:32 AM

Do YOU believe that John was a prophet?
yes or no?

I only believe what I can prove and support with Scripture...

As far as I know, John was a disciple,and is described and describes himself a few ways....(you can google it if you like)

But I dont remember him calling himself a "prophet"?
so I think its best to just stick with describing John as he described himself....He is clearly a disciple, a brother and servant in the Lord and leave it at that....

alanmolstad

06-08-2015, 10:38 AM

and would YOU stop believing he was a prophet if he said something as kooky as "I saw an angel in the Sun"?
yes or no?

A true prophet has to be right 100% of the time.

A false prophet gets to be 99.9999 % correct most of the time.

So a true prophet can't say that there are men living on the moon and what they look like, because that would be an error and as a true prophet you dont get to be "a little off"
You dont get to make that type of scientific error.

There were never any such men living on the moon.
So the statement was an invention and a falsehood from the moment it was spoken.

yes, we did not have proof that it was wrong for many, many years...but the fact is that it was in error the moment it was spoken,,,
it did not 'fall" into error....
It did not "become" in error.

For it was in error the moment it was spoken.

Its like inventing a story about a country where people used to have a big city and millions of people lived and died and wars wre faught.
And then later finding out that no such people lived there, no wars were faught there, and that not a single thing turns out to be true about such a claim.
The story does not 'turn out to be false" as in, it "became' false.
Rather the story was false the moment it left the lips of the so-called "prophet"
It was error from the start....told to us by a person that told many such errors....

Its like...a true Prophet can say something , and what they say has to be true.

But a false prophet can say something about stuff, and it turns out to be totally wrong its no big deal for a false prophet...
We dont hold false Prophets to the same standard as true prophets...

You can be a good false Prophet and not really have to be too worried you make a silly statement or two....

And....if you are a member of a church that has a False prophet as your leader you dont have to get too upset if your prophet makes a few silly statements.....its no big deal.

Just laugh it off, and if challenged just answer that it was just "One of them silly ideas that lots of people back then believed"

Phoenix

06-09-2015, 03:10 PM

I only believe what I can prove and support with Scripture...
So you don't think the scriptures prove that St. John was a prophet, and that's why you reject him as a prophet?

Phoenix

06-09-2015, 03:11 PM

A true prophet has to be right 100% of the time.
A false prophet gets to be 99.9999 % correct most of the time.

so you think that st. john wasn't right 100 percent of the time?

alanmolstad

06-09-2015, 04:18 PM

So you don't think the scriptures prove that St. John was a prophet, and that's why you reject him as a prophet?
Do you talk to people at the door like that?

Phoenix

06-09-2015, 08:43 PM

Do you talk to people at the door like that?

if they aren't willing to answer my questions, why are they at my door in the first place?

alanmolstad

06-09-2015, 08:49 PM

I believe this is actually one of your better posts to date on the forum....!

The Lord has already SPOKEN on the subject

Matt 24:24-25
24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
NKJV

Mark 13:22-23
22 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.
NKJV

Funny thing. . .He NEVER ONCE MENTIONED
an aaronic priesthood in the CHRISTIAN church.
any Melchizedek priests EXCEPT HIMSELF in the CHRISTIAN church.
any 'priesthood authority' other than HIMSELF in the CHRISTIAN church.
no marriage forever in the CHRISTIAN church.
no families forever in the CHRISTIAN church.
no 'you can be exalted to godhood' in the CHRISTIAN church.
no three heavens you might go to in the CHRISTIAN church.

He must have FORGOTTEN 'all' of those things, huh?

But then, joey smith just MADE THOSE THINGS UP, didn't he?

disciple

06-10-2015, 08:26 AM

So what if Joseph Smith was married to 14 year old girls at the time? You're talking about the 1800s, not the 1900s or 2000s. It was common for girls that age to get married and not just in the church. You cannot use the view of today's society as the measuring stick for what happened nearly 200 years ago. If a woman was single at 25 she was considered someone who had something wrong with her.

As far as John being a prophet, Jesus said John was so what her John said he was or not is irrelevant. Prophets are human and God doesn't expect them to be perfect. They are also en***led to opinions like everyone else. If you look at the "test" in Deuteronomy it only says to not fear a prophet if he gets something wrong. It never says he's considered a false prophet.

Sorry I came in late, where does Jesus call the apostle John a prophet? Or are you talking about John the Baptist? Thanks.

alanmolstad

06-10-2015, 08:26 PM

So what if Joseph Smith was married to 14 year old girls at the time? .

truly......a remarkable statement.....a keeper...something to remember,
Something to point other Mormons too....

And....it actually reminds me of a story:
A while ago, back when Billy and Jim used to post on this forum all the time....
There was a big argument going on with some Mormons, (I think it was with a Mormon lady who posted here a lot back then) over the question of Joe Smith taking little girls to his bed.

the Mormon lady was adamant that this never happened....
She kept demanding proof over and over...saying that she has heard all about these so-called stories and that there was not any proof to them.
She actually got really upset that people would say that Smith was married to a little girls that young.
I once asked her "How would you feel if it ever came out that Joe Smith did marry a little girl that young?"
The Mormon lady turned the question around and asked me "What would you think if your Pastor was found in bed with a girl that young?"

i told her that "It would indict everything that the pastor ever said!"......and she agreed with me on that.

She was so certain that Smith was never married to a little girl 14 year old, that .......well......she was so certain, she was always so much in Jim's face and so sure of her facts, that when we all learned that the position of the Mormon church changed its tune on the topic that i guess its not a surprise that the Mormon lady has not shown her face around this forum lately....

It's got to be embarr***ing.....

Phoenix

06-11-2015, 12:45 AM

the question of Joe Smith taking little girls to his bed.
so you think you can prove that he took little girls to his bed. awesome. go for it. prove it. do what the best professional historians in the field of mormon history have been unable to do. you will be famous.

It's got to be embarr***ing.....
don't be embarr***ed until you try to prove your claim and fail.

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 04:20 AM

so you think you can prove that he took little girls to his bed. awesome. go for it. prove it. do what the best professional historians in the field of mormon history have been unable to do. you will be famous.

don't be embarr***ed until you try to prove your claim and fail.
Well all i can tell you is what the Mormon lady said to us all, and about her confidence that Joe Smith never married a little girl that young, to see if you share it?

Jim and Billy would tell her that Joe Smith married a little girl and others too, and she kept asking, "Where is the proof he had more than one wife?"
She pointed out that Walter Martin is on a recording saying that Smith only had one wife!
She was 100% sure tha Smith never married girls that young....so very sure!

So I asked her-
"What if it does come out that Smith did marry a little young girl only 14 years old?"

"Would that matter to you?"

"Would you be so offended and sure now that Smith was only in this for the sexual conquests that you would call into question the whole,"I finded the Golden Tablets!" story?"

"Or are you now of the opinion that screwing little 14 year olds on the side is not that bad for the founder of your religion?"

"That the topic is a "moot point" as far as you are concerned?"

It is very interesting to note her reaction:
She was 100% sure Joe Smith never married a 14 yearold girl......yet.....yet she would not say that if it was proved that he did it would matter.
She would not say she would stop being a Mormon on the question of Smith's sexual conquests.

So what did this mean to me?
It means that regardless of how much faith she put in her Mormon religion being true, she also had to maintain a slight chance that "Smith was a pervert" and so not paint herself into a corner and say that if its true that "Smith was nothing but a pervert" that she then had to stop being a Mormon....

So she always left herself an "out"

Phoenix

06-11-2015, 01:59 PM

Well all i can tell you is what the Mormon lady said to us all,

so you admit that you can't prove that Joseph Smith took ANY little girls to his bed. awesome.
thank you.

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 02:56 PM

so you admit that you can't prove that Joseph Smith took ANY little girls to his bed. awesome.
thank you.

Would it make any difference to the Lady Mormon?

Would it make any difference to you?

No it would not!......so sad......

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 03:44 PM

Would it make any difference to the Lady Mormon?

Would it make any difference to you?

No it would not!......so sad......

see you have to understand what has just happened within Mormonism...
For years Mormons were told to "dismiss" the very idea that Smith married a little 14 year old child.
They were told to do this whenever the topic came up.

thus when the topic did come up hereon this forum many times, the Lady Mormon did as she was always told, and dismissed it as all lies.

But the Mormon church did a 180 and has changed it's tune on the topic of Smith being involved with underage girls while married to his wife.

This change of tune kinda pulls the rug out from under the nice Mormon lady.

Here she was always told by the church that the idea that Smith married a 14 year old girl was a lie, but now out of the blue suddenly the church flip-flops and now claims that he did do this very thing???????

, and so now the official teaching is that its to be seen as "No big deal"????

First it was to be presented as a "lie"
Now its to be presented as "No Big deal".....

The hand writing is on the wall here kids.
We all know where this will one day lead to.....

And the Lady Mormon knows this too,
and I believe that is why she would not say that if its true that Smith was a child molester that she would stop believe in Mormonism...

She would not say that as she is starting to see that she cant put too much trust in the current, "No big deal" cover story....

and...
She has decided that her Prophet Smith can be wacky sexually......

so she dont want to paint herself into a corner should next month the Mormon church start to do another flip-flop and then come out with a new cover story on how to justify the fact that Joe Smith, (the founder of the Mormon church), is guilty of having sex with little children.

Phoenix

06-11-2015, 03:56 PM

Would it make any difference to the Lady Mormon?
Would it make any difference to you?
......

isn't that a hypothetical question that calls for speculation? If that's the game you are actively promoting, then I will play.
what if the virgin mary was 14 when she married her husband joseph--would that make any difference to you that he married a young girl and took her to bed? yes or no?

would it cause you to think less highly of joseph of nazareth?
yes or no?

your answers will help me figure out how reasonable you and your questions are. thanks

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 07:52 PM

isn't that a hypothetical question that calls for speculation? If that's the game you are actively promoting, then I will play.
what if the virgin mary was 14 when she married her husband joseph--would that make any difference to you that he married a young girl and took her to bed? yes or no?

would it cause you to think less highly of joseph of nazareth?
yes or no?

your answers will help me figure out how reasonable you and your questions are. thanks

The issue here is a married man taking a "strange" underage girl as a so-called "wife" but we all know what was really going on here.
So for Joseph, or the Mormon founder Joe Smith, or the JW/Watchtower guy Russel...Or the Korean guy Moon....Or David Koresh..or Charles Manson.....or whomever name you may want to add...

My answer would be the same for any married man (the "religion thing" is a moot point, you don't get to cheat on your wife and commit child molestation because you start your own religion)

Nor can you try to justify molesting a child with the excuse "Everybody did it"

I would toss is **** out of my house to be sure...and not trust a word he had to say because it would be clearly a case of an older "MARRIED"guy who is using his fake religion to get different single, married, or underage women into his bed...

Now this is just a personal view, but I hold guys like Smith to be even lower forms of life than guys who just are guilty of cheating on their wives.
Smith went the extra bit,,,,and truly dove down into the darkest muck of sin when he went after the little underage child.

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 07:57 PM

Once again,,,the excuse "Everybody did it" does not cut it with me!

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:02 PM

The issue here is a married man taking a "strange" underage girl as a so-called "wife" but we all know what was really going on here.
So for Joseph, or the Mormon founder Joe Smith, or the JW/Watchtower guy Russel...Or the Korean guy Moon....Or David Koresh..or Charles Manson.....or whomever name you may want to add...

My answer would be the same for any married man (the "religion thing" is a moot point, you don't get to cheat on your wife and commit child molestation because you start your own religion)

Nor can you try to justify molesting a child with the excuse "Everybody did it"

I would toss is **** out of my house to be sure...and not trust a word he had to say because it would be clearly a case of an older "MARRIED"guy who is using his fake religion to get different single, married, or underage women into his bed...

Now this is just a personal view, but I hold guys like Smith to be even lower forms of life than guys who just are guilty of cheating on their wives.
Smith went the extra bit,,,,and truly dove down into the darkest muck of sin when he went after the little underage child.

One of the best things I have come up with and posted in a long time..

gets to the heart of what i believe Smith was guilty of...

Phoenix

06-11-2015, 08:09 PM

thanks, Alan, for answering my questions. since you chose to not answer them clearly and directly, and instead chose to answer them as part of a drive-by smear on people other than the virgin mary's husband, i will translate what you wrote and make your answers more apparent instead of hidden in your vitriol. the bolded parts of your response are the parts that show how you feel about the virgin mary's husband:

...taking a "strange" underage girl as a so-called "wife" but we all know what was really going on here....child molestation...try to justify molesting a child with the excuse "Everybody did it"...I would toss is **** out of my house to be sure...and not trust a word he had to say ...using his fake religion to get different single, married, or underage women into his bed..... lower forms of life than guys who just are guilty of cheating on their wives.
... dove down into the darkest muck of sin when he went after the little underage child.

thanks again for answering my questions. and just as a reminder, here are the questions you answered:

what if the virgin mary was 14 when she married her husband joseph--would that make any difference to you that he married a young girl and took her to bed? yes or no?

would it cause you to think less highly of joseph of nazareth?
yes or no?

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:11 PM

as for the final state of Joe Smith in the after life?

I believe Jesus tells us that .....

""If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Smith doomed himself.....

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:15 PM

Again...if any married man....regardless of their position in any religion, were to use his religion as a way to get different girls into his bed?

I would toss his **** out of my house.

And a religious leader that takes a 14 your old girl as his so-called "wife"? and tries to support this by dreaming up a new teaching,and telling people - "God told me to".....needs shooting.

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:17 PM

It was common for the society of the time. .

"Everybody does it"......never worked in the garden,,,never worked when I got caught by my parents....and never works now in my own home with my own family.

I tell them, ""I dont care if you think everybody does it, we dont in this house!"

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:20 PM

My response to When a married man invents a religion with the only goal to get younger and younger girls into his bed?.....I get their hat and coat and show them the door....

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:24 PM

you clearly are struggling to find some reason that would justify Smith molesting a 14 year old child.

There is none.....

You can ask the question a million different ways...add all kinds of additions to it...try your hardest to find some way to put a better spin of Smiths actions..

But my answer is always going to be the same....

There is none...

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:25 PM

Smith did what is evil.

Because he was an evil man...

and,,,that is why i believe that Smith ended up in what the TV show Firefly called the "Special Hell"

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:40 PM

once again......
There was a nice Mormon lady that debated and debated both Jim and Billy, telling them that the whole idea that Smith married a 14 year old girl is a big fat lie.

Now I see Mormons doing a flip-flop and saying, "Everybody was doing it"

I get that some Mormons just get the newest "truth" from Utah and run with it regardless of how crazy it is...
But I also notice that not all Mormons are so easy to switch to go from saying, "It never happened!"...to.... "So what? It's not a big deal"

alanmolstad

06-11-2015, 08:42 PM

and...."But, Everybody was doing it", does NOT WORK IN MY HOUSE!!!!!

Phoenix

06-11-2015, 09:56 PM

and...."But, Everybody was doing it", does NOT WORK IN MY HOUSE!!!!!

i admire you for refusing to use a double standard--one for the virgin mary's husband joseph, and a different one for emma's husband joseph.

you just accuse both men of being evil and of doing evil things if both men married 14-year-old girls and took them to bed...even though there is no evidence that joseph smith did it, but some evidence that joseph of nazareth did.

you would shoot both men and kick them out of your house because it doesn't matter how many men did it, when they did it, why they did it, or in what culture they did it. all men who marry teenagers deserve death because they are child molesters.

like i said, i admire your willingness to not change the rules for a man the bible and most christians say was a good, decent man. you don't care what the bible says. joseph the carpenter, the man who married a pregnant teen-ager because he believed that God wanted him to do it, and who then raised, taught, and protected the Savior and Son of God through His childhood, deserved to die as the vilest of sinners.

okay, then. thanks again for sharing your beliefs about both josephs.

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 04:16 AM

i admire you for refusing to use a double standard--one for the virgin mary's husband joseph, and a different one for emma's husband joseph.
.............

When finally confronted by the fact that President Clinton was in fact guilty of adultery with a young girl, the Democrat supporters of Clinton came up with a defense whereby they bring up the sins of other past Presidents in an effort to make the sins of Clinton "look smaller"

I heard many of my liberal friends start talking about how President Jefferson actually had children by some of his slaves.

I used to think abut what the supporters were actually doing...

Rather than admitting, "The guy sinned" they would try to wrap Clinton in the flag of Jefferson.
They did this because the common view of most Americans is that President Jefferson is the greatest President we ever had, and so if you say that Clinton and Jefferson were much alike its got to make the adultery of Clinton seem like a very small issue and not worth talking about.

I notice the same type of defense today too when I confront the supporters of Joe Smith and the fact that he was both an adulterer and child molester..
They no longer really try to tell us "It never happened" like the Mormon lady did with Jim and Billy here on the forum,
Rather what they do is attempt to wrap their guy in the flag of some other person that they believe has the reputation of being the- "Greatest person to ever live"

Its not something that works with me however.

Pointing to some other person and saying, "But that person did it before me!" is not a excuse .

Actually it sounds like something a little kid comes up with when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Phoenix

06-12-2015, 09:48 AM

In short, your way of dealing with the real facts is to ignore them and whatever you believe on the subject must be true. Gotcha. Again, ever asked God if the Book of Mormon is true?

i just find it unusual--i have almost never found a christian who thinks that joseph the carpenter was a child molester who deserved to be shot.

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 01:31 PM

When finally confronted by the fact that President Clinton was in fact guilty of adultery with a young girl, the Democrat supporters of Clinton came up with a defense whereby they bring up the sins of other past Presidents in an effort to make the sins of Clinton "look smaller"

I heard many of my liberal friends start talking about how President Jefferson actually had children by some of his slaves.

I used to think abut what the supporters were actually doing...

Rather than admitting, "The guy sinned" they would try to wrap Clinton in the flag of Jefferson.
They did this because the common view of most Americans is that President Jefferson is the greatest President we ever had, and so if you say that Clinton and Jefferson were much alike its got to make the adultery of Clinton seem like a very small issue and not worth talking about.

I notice the same type of defense today too when I confront the supporters of Joe Smith and the fact that he was both an adulterer and child molester..
They no longer really try to tell us "It never happened" like the Mormon lady did with Jim and Billy here on the forum,
Rather what they do is attempt to wrap their guy in the flag of some other person that they believe has the reputation of being the- "Greatest person to ever live"

Its not something that works with me however.

Pointing to some other person and saying, "But that person did it before me!" is not a excuse .

Actually it sounds like something a little kid comes up with when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

I think this is one of the best comments I have posted in a while

I may have to copy it and post it again as its own topic on how people act when their leaders get caught with a young girl

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 03:41 PM

"best" comments....

It's one of my BEST comments...

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 03:44 PM

Seriously, who cares? One, it was common back then. .

"But mom, everyone was doing it!"

I cant speak for others, but in my house, "mom" is not so easy to fool.....

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 03:46 PM

If people consider it wrong today, then it had to be wrong since the beginning of time, right? .
Male and female He created them..

Not male and female and another female, and an extra underage girl for when Adam was out of town and needed something on the side....

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 03:49 PM

Did you know a Somali man at 112 married a 17 year old? That is part of their culture. Do you view that man as a pedophile since he isn't abiding by our culture and society?.
yes............perhaps he is guilty of that,
But if he was not married at the time then he is not in the same error that Joe Smith is in.
Joe Smith had a real wife you know....

He cheated on her ....

You admire him for that while i say that he is among the worst of sinners.

Thats where we differ...

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 03:52 PM

"But Alan, was not the mom of Jesus only 14 years old when she got married?"

oh really?...got a bible verse to back that up?......Ill wait......LOL :)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 03:55 PM

"But Alan, was not the husband of Mary doing the same thing as the Mormon founder Joe Smith did?"

Oh really?...Mary's husband was marred to another woman when he took Mary as his 2nd or 3rd or 4th wife?....got a Bible verse to back that up?.....I'll wait.... :)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 04:00 PM

"but Alan, you are using modern standards to judge people of the past"

Oh really?.....and where do I get my standards?.....guess where?....The Bible!
When Joe Smith cheated on his wife and married this little young child as his,ummmmmm....what?....his 20th wife or so?....in doing this Smith entered a truly ugly place in human history.

Smith is guilty of using his position in a religion he invented to get strange women into his bed.

Thats what I think of him...

Thats all I think of him....

Smith committed adultery...

And, whats more, when Smith went after this child he violated a clear warning that Jesus gave mankind about "causing one of these little ones to stumble"

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 04:06 PM

"But Alan, have you ever given the Mormon religion a thought that it might be true?...perhaos make a prayer about it?"

Oh really?....you want to know what I feel in my gut when I talk about Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the whole religion of Mormonism?.....I feel totally disgusted with them all!

I believe 100 and 10% that Smith invented the whole "I found a golden book" story.
I believe that Smith is burning in Hell right now, surrounded by millions and millions of burning Mormons who were silly enough to trust him.
I believe that the whole Mormon religion is based around sex...and the seeking of sex with different young girls that is offered to Mormon men.

I believe that Mormonism is a worship of Satan.....

so, yes, I spend a lot of time in prayer about getting mixed up with that stuff.....:)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 04:08 PM

Unlike you, I do my research.

Good, I look forward to you posting the verse that pins down the age of Mary at 14 when she got the visit and got married....

Yes....i look forward to that a great deal..... :) :) :)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 04:11 PM

You are a very desperate person to ignore differences in culture, even the various culture changes in America throughout time.see post number #109 above for my response...

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 04:16 PM

go on...and ask me....Im sure you already know what i will say....

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 04:34 PM

No verse yet?.....

oh thats too bad....

(Have you tried google?)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 05:29 PM

I never take name calling personal...`
(The tree is always known by it's fruit)

So , is that it or do you have some more personal comments you wanted to squeeze in?

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 05:30 PM

No verse yet?.....

oh thats too bad....

(Have you tried google?)

the sound of crickets............

I think I have my answer...:)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 08:35 PM

the sound of crickets............

I think I have my answer...:)

Zzzzzzz......Zzzzzzzzzzz.......Zzzzzzzzzzz.....

(The crickets fell asleep waiting for the Mormon to list the Bible verse that purports to say the age of Mary when she was married.....)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 08:39 PM

.....You seem to be the type who believes something isn't true if it isn't in the Bible.

Im the type can back up what I believe about God with a verse....

As for the accusation that I look to the bible to find truth?......Im GUILTY!
(see Acts 17:11 to learn why)

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 09:02 PM

Will you ever ASK GOD if the Book of Mormon is true?

"Oh Lord, I have always wanted to have lots of sex with many other women besides my wife.
Will you send me a sign, any sign will do, even just indigestion, that you have picked out a new religion for me that would have as one of it's teachings that in the afterlife I will get to cheat on my wife with many, many young girls and its ok with you?

And Lord, if its not too much trouble, I have always wanted to wear super-secret underwear.
So could you make this new religion where I get to as well?

And before I go Lord...I have always felt the Christian Church has just too low of an opinion of Satan, so could you work things out better in thine new religion for Satan too?
Perhaps you could make him equal to Jesus?..like for instance make them "brothers"?

Thanks, Lord...

and P.S.
let me know when I can expect to rule my own planet like you..and make tons of spirit babies with really stacked wives...
I want to get "cracken" on that right away!
Amen.

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 09:09 PM

"Oh Lord, I have always wanted to have lots of sex with many other women besides my wife.
Will you send me a sign, any sign will do, even just indigestion, that you have picked out a new religion for me that would have as one of it's teachings that in the afterlife I will get to cheat on my wife with many, many young girls and its ok with you?

And Lord, if its not too much trouble, I have always wanted to wear super-secret underwear.
So could you make this new religion where I get to as well?

And before I go Lord...I have always felt the Christian Church has just too low of an opinion of Satan, so could you work things out better in thine new religion for Satan too?
Perhaps you could make him equal to Jesus?..like for instance make them "brothers"?

Thanks, Lord...

and P.S.
let me know when I can expect to rule my own planet like you..and make tons of spirit babies with really stacked wives...
I want to get "cracken" on that right away!
Amen.

Another one of my best comments I have ever posted on the forum.

Im going to have to start setting some of these up in their own topic so that I can refer to them in the future as the way i think about Joe Smith....Mormons....and the whole Mormon religion.

alanmolstad

06-12-2015, 09:26 PM

personal attacks don't really bother me, so go on...get it out of your system....

alanmolstad

06-13-2015, 04:49 AM

you want to know what I feel in my gut when I talk about Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the whole religion of Mormonism?.....

I feel totally disgusted with them all!

any questions, or is this clear enough?

alanmolstad

06-13-2015, 06:25 AM

You have been disrespectful toward (the Mormon)God, (the Mormon)Jesus Christ, the (the Mormon)scriptures, a(the Mormon) prophet of God, members of the (the Mormon)church,(the Mormon) prayer, and everything that relates to (the Mormon)God.

there...now thats more correct looking...

you are welcome

alanmolstad

06-13-2015, 07:47 AM

Once again....
I have no respect at all for Joe Smith, nor his ideas, nor his story of finding a golden book, nor do i respect the arguments put forward by supporters of Smith and find their faith moot, their religion sex-based,their work pushing their teachings to be evilness, and their idea about the afterlife disgusting.

But while I feel such things 100% strongly, I never , ever attack other guests to this forum in a personal manner.

I dont go on and on attacking the person, but I do attack the person's ideas....their teachings....their religion...their church...their "prophet".

I dont say to the guest here, "You are this___" or "You are a ___"
Rather I always attempt to keep the subject in my posts about ideas, teachings, historical figures, and debatable points of the bible.
If I disagree with what a person says, then I go after the idea behind what they say....

I dont have to call them names...
I dont have to hide behind this or that flag pole or cross just to get away with calling the other person a name.

I stick to the ideas that people bring to the forum, and I dont get into the personal.

We had a guy here that could not stop getting personal with people (he was very much against the Mormons)....
I used to warn him not to attack people in his posts....
He told me that he was just doing what Jesus also did when Jesus confronted evil men.

I warned him that you should not try to act like that on a forum...he did not listen....he got banned.
I did not want him to get banned,
I tried to warn him to not take everything to such a personal level....I tried to encourage him to let the personal attacks made against him just slide.

But he was unable to listen to my advice, and turns out did not last long on the forum.

Thats why as best i can i tell the other guests to "Dont take everything so personal, and dont attack each other in a personal way in your posts, but just attack the ideas of the other person"

Or you dont last long here.....

alanmolstad

06-13-2015, 02:02 PM

a lack?....I have "No" respect for the Mormon god!,
nor the Mormon Jesus ,
nor the Mormon religion...
or all their teachings about sex in heaven,or their god being a man, nor that disgusting teaching that Satan was a brother to the Lord Jesus...

nor Do I believe for one moment that Smith actually found anything in the dirt.
All that stuff about the "Book Of Mormon" is a big fat lie as far as im concerned!

I believe Joe Smith just was running a big con game, getting the gullible to believe whatever story he needed to invent in order to get people's money , power, and women in his bed.

I believe that Mormonism is a sin.
I believe that people that become Mormons have committed a sin that will cost them their souls.
I believe that not a single teaching about God that Smith came out with was actually true...I dont believe for a second that any angels appeared to him....(unless they were fallen angels)
I believe that all the door-to-door work by Mormons to spread their filth is sinful and needs to be confronted when we get the chance.

While I respect the man or woman that might be a Mormon as a person, and am never a guy who will ever attack them personally, I yet have ZERO RESPECT for their Mormon religion, and am not shy at telling be so...

Phoenix

06-13-2015, 02:35 PM

Another one of my best comments I have ever posted on the forum.

Im going to have to start setting some of these up in their own topic so that I can refer to them in the future as the way i think about Joe Smith....Mormons.....
So the way you think about Joe Smith is also the way you think about Mormons?

Phoenix

06-13-2015, 02:36 PM

While I respect the man or woman that might be a Mormon as a person, ...

But in post 135 you said "I have no respect at all for Joe Smith."
Wasn't Joe Smith a Mormon as a person?

Phoenix

06-13-2015, 02:48 PM

Im the type can back up what I believe about God with a verse....

Can you find a verse that will back up your belief that any man who marries a teen-ager is a child molester who should be shot?

I couldn't find that verse in my Bible.

alanmolstad

06-13-2015, 03:34 PM

Can you find a verse that will back up your belief that any man who marries a teen-ager is a child molester who should be shot?

I couldn't find that verse in my Bible.

The answer Jesus gave for such who cause this type of harm in the lives of children was a millstone around the next and tossed into the sea.

Now don't get me wrong,That is a fine answer that Jesus gave...I got no problem with that answer..More power to him for suggesting that....

But the main problem is that we simply dont have many millstones around any more.

Now in this more modern age we see that a mob can take care of things with few rounds fired thought an upstairs window.

That also works for me...I got no problem with that too.
Perhaps not the same answer I would come up with, nor really all that "biblical", but in reality,......we have no tears here that type of guy.

But Im sure if that same mob had a chance, the answer Christ gave would have been just as useful....slower to be sure,,,but useful....

Phoenix

06-13-2015, 03:40 PM

alanmolstad

06-13-2015, 03:45 PM

But in post 135 you said "I have no respect at all for Joe Smith."
Wasn't Joe Smith a Mormon as a person?

Oh you misunderstand....

Joe Smith is not a member of this forum.
I respect the members of this forum and never deal with anything of a personal nature...
I dont tell people that they are a _______.
I dont bring up stuff about them personally.
I dont start topics aimed at them by ***le.

For the most part I simply ignore people that try to attack me personally.
i let their comments slide.

When I see people attacking others in a personal manner, I try to warn them that they are going to get in trouble for breaking the rules as they are doing.

When someone simply turns out to be a nasty person and nothing i can say or warn them matters to them, then I simply put their names on my IGNORE LIST and dont have anything more to do with them at all.

But then again, none of the members of this forum are self-proclaimed "prophets" too.... :)

Thus I go after historical figures of history like Hitler, Stalin, Joe Smith, etc as hard as i can...
I try to hit them hard with all the power I can bring into my arguments and attacks.
For these types of people are responsible for the loss of life, and the loss of souls of millions and millions of people..

I **** them to Hell!
I got no tears at the story telling of their death...

When Charles Manson dies, I will add his name to the list, without any tears...

Joe Smith was a con man.
Joe Smith was a false Prophet
Joe Smith was a child molester
Joe Smith invented his story of finding stuff in the dirt.
Joe Smith cheated on his wife.
Joe Smith convinced other men to cheat on their wives.

As far as Im concerned, Joe Smith is rotting in a ever-burning Hell, and justifiable so...

AND THIS MEANS?

It means, that if any guest on this forum thinks I will not confront and attack the truly evil historical figures in many of the world's false religions?.....Well, they have misunderstood what i have been saying.

Perhaps I need to say this better in the future....

But perhaps I have said it rightly, and people just need to read it better....

alanmolstad

06-13-2015, 03:55 PM

So if you had lived 2015 years ago, and seen a man and his teen-aged bride on their way to Bethlehem, you would have wanted to shoot the man because, in your mind, the man was a child molester.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

If the man was married to a good wife already, (as Smith was) and had convinced a few other girls (that were swept up by his false teachings, or simply were so underage they could not object), in also being married with him?
, in violation of the law and the idea that "God made them male and female", Not "Male and female, and another woman or two with a 14 year old for a little something on the side",?

- then I would not shoot that guy, (as guns were not invented back then)

However for a husband caught in adultery and cheating red-handed on his wife in this type of perversion, I believe the Bible does have a few suggestions...

So I would stick to what the bible suggests we do with people that do this type of perversion.

Phoenix

06-14-2015, 05:18 PM

Oh you misunderstand....
this is what you said: I respect the man or woman that might be a Mormon as a person, ..
I took you at your word. maybe I shouldn't have.

Joe Smith is not a member of this forum.
you are adding that fine print qualifier NOW.
maybe you believed that anyone reading your post could also read your mind.

I dont start topics aimed at them by ***le.
so you don't start threads aimed at people with the ***le "mormons" ????

I **** them to Hell!
i thought that was God's ***. is there a Bible verse showing that mere mortal humans in general, or you in particular, have the power or authority to **** people to hell?

maybe no poster is a self-proclaimed prophet, but one poster might be proclaiming himself to be God....

Joe Smith was a child molester
thanks for returning to that topic. you still believe that any man who marries a 14-year-old is a child molester who deserves to be shot to death. so you believe that if you were an innkeeper in Bethlehem, about 2015 years ago, and you saw teen-aged Mary and her husband Joseph looking for a place to spend the night and give birth to a baby, you would want to murder Joseph.

Perhaps I need to say this better in the future....
But perhaps I have said it rightly, and people just need to read it better....
or perhaps you should just say things that make more sense.

alanmolstad

06-14-2015, 05:32 PM

you are adding that fine print qualifier NOW.
.
yes...I guess if you want to have me tell you point by point on a matter it will take a fewposts and questions answered..

But basically its this.

I try to show respect to all people, regardless of their religion that show up on this forum, and among the reasons to do this is that it is in keeping with the rules about such things.

I try to keep the rules that I agreed to keep when I first logged on to this site.

So, this means that I dont attack any member of this forum in a personal manner.
I dont google people....I dont look them up on facebook....I dont talk about stuff from CARM.

I try to let everyone come here as a "Blank slate" and not hold the fact that they get banned 4 or 5 times a year at CARM carry any weight here.

So for members I do not go after them or talk about their sex lives or talk about if they cheated on their wife with a 14 year old girl...etc.

But it is open season for non-members like "President Clinton"
this is because to fully understand the person of Clinton you have to dig down into the muck and talk about the girls that he beds.

This is also true with a few historical figures like, Joe Smith too.

A person will just never come to full and wise understanding of Smith's motivations unless you dig down into the muck of his cheating on his wife, and how much time he spent at it.

You will never understand his degenerative life, or the reasons the mob felt the need to kill him unless you dig into the story behind all the women that he was bedding, and the young underage girls that he was also after

Once you understand that Smith was a pervert, then you can see what he was after from the very beginning..

alanmolstad

06-14-2015, 05:42 PM

so you don't start threads aimed at people with the ***le "mormons" ????

I believe ,if you check the rules for the forum, that you cant 'aim" a topic at one single member of the forum.
This means that I would be breaking the rules if I started a topic like, " David Jackson cant answer my questions?"

The reason for this rule and why its important is that every member of this forum should feel free to post or not post as they want...
If you aim a topic at one member of this forum, then that person will feel under the gun to respond...and suddenly this forum will quickly slide into all the posts being "Attack Topics" where people just make up attacking topics to make other people feel bad and not want to return here.

So by never aiming a topic at one single member of the forum, all members then can enjoy a chance to post if they want to, or not post if they dont want to....

So in other words?
In other words you can aim a topic at a general population like "Christians" or "Mormons" or "Moonies"
But not at a single indivual of this forum like "David Tompson" or Betty Jackson"

If you have any questions on this ,please check out the forum RULES

alanmolstad

06-14-2015, 05:48 PM

so you believe that if you were an innkeeper in Bethlehem, about 2015 years ago, and you saw teen-aged Mary and her husband Joseph looking for a place to spend the night and give birth to a baby, you would want to murder Joseph.

.

You keep asking the same question over and over, its as if you think that there might be a different answer from me this time?

Once again, here is my answer http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3601-My-best-post-so-far-on-my-views-of-Smith-and-the-Mormons-who-defend-him

Now if you feel you mustkeep asking the same question to me over and over?.......fine go ahead.

But it's just going to look to me as if you were trapped in some type of sad attempt to make the actions of Smith "look better"

..but if you have to keep asking the same question over and over?, then trust me Im just going to quote to you what I have already posted on the topic....

alanmolstad

06-14-2015, 08:23 PM

What would you have done if you lived in the time of Joseph and Mary? Would you have said "Oh cool" or "boo" to their marriage given her age of 14? And please give a real answer instead of avoiding the question like you repeatedly have.see post # 145

(Oh and I noticed that no one ever was able to post that Bible verse that taught that Mary was only 14 years old?????LOL :) :)
So its simply silly for you and I to speculate on things and then build a whole foundation on such wild and baseless speculations.

So......I dont)

and the heart of your post is this:

You are attempting to make the sin of child molestation that the Mormon founder Joe Smith was clearly guilty of look smaller, by bringing up other people that you hope to then paint as being "just as bad or worse" in the hope that this all will make Smith's sins look minor.....

But as you can see.....Im not that easy to fool.

This is just like the defenders of President Clinton who also attempted to likewise make Clinton's adultery look not so bad by bringing up the many adulteries hinted at in the life of President Jefferson.

The idea is that you can make anyone's sins look smaller if you stand them up next to Hitler's sins.

But that simply is error.
That is not how to judge Joe Smith.

You judge him by the marriage vows he took to his wife....
That is the standard that he himself agreed to be judged by.......and the fact that he married other women and broke his vows....and as such is guilty of adultery..

alanmolstad

06-14-2015, 08:38 PM

gosh it must be painful to want the Bible to say that Mary was only 14...but end up so frustrated that the bible simply does not say what you want it to say...

This is why people change what the Bible says to make it fit into what they want to believe....and how a CULT is born.....

alanmolstad

06-14-2015, 08:39 PM

if you got a verse that teaches the age of mary,,,then put up or shut up...

alanmolstad

06-14-2015, 08:41 PM

but if no such verse is found in the Bible...Then you cant build a whole line of arguments on top of a lack of verses in the Bible to support your views...

Thats like saying you believe Jesus drove a car and pointing to a lack of verses that say he did not drive a car as proof that he did...and then using this line of reasoning to support other more crazy ideas about cars.....all based on a LACK of support in the text!

You cant base your views on things that are not found in the Bible.....

Phoenix

06-14-2015, 11:51 PM

gosh it must be painful to want the Bible to say that Mary was only 14...but end up so frustrated that the bible simply does not say what you want it to say...
gosh it must be painful to want the Book of Mormon to say that Joseph Smith had sex with the 14-year-old, instead of it being a dynastic sealing ceremony, as arguably the foremost expert (Todd Compton) on the subject has stated...but end up so frustrated that the Book of Mormon, let alone the history of mormonism, simply does not say what you want it to say..

imagining nasty things without evidence to justify your nasty imagination is how a CULT or a conspiracy theory group is born....

alanmolstad

06-16-2015, 04:23 AM

if you got a verse that teaches the age of mary,,,then put up or shut up...

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/crime-and-courts/3767099-ex-moorhead-hockey-goalie-accused-sneaking-14-year-olds-room-have-sex

If only this pervert would have started his own religion before he got caught...

Then his followers of his religion could point to the Mormon founder Joe Smith and say, "But if Joe Smith got away with it why cant our guy?"

Phoenix

06-16-2015, 10:33 AM

We aren't talking about anyone getting away with anything. You are trying to force today's culture upon the culture of the 1800s. Back then, it was common and NOT IMMORAL for a 14 year old girl to get married. You have contradicted yourself on the subject though. You have said Joseph Smith was a pervert for marrying a 14 year old but turned around and said others who married 14 year olds weren't perverts simply because they weren't already married. Who cares? Abraham was married to two women, Jacob had 4, and the Lord gave David 4 women who were already married. Nobody ever thought marrying a 14 year old was a wrong thing to do. The moment the law changed, people changed their point of view. Things that are considered immoral today are often things that were not considered immoral back then.

i am just glad that time travel isn't possible, because if it were, then some anti-mormons would be going back in time and shooting every single man, of whatever religion, who married a teen-ager over the past 7000 years. that would be lots of shooting.

alanmolstad

06-16-2015, 10:48 AM

i am just glad that time travel isn't possible, because if it were, then some anti-mormons would be going back in time and shooting every single man, of whatever religion, who married a teen-ager over the past 7000 years. that would be lots of shooting.

I believe the news story informs us that the penalty for the thing that Joe was guilty of is around 10 years....

I think that sounds about right....

But if they wanted to really solve these guy's problem they should take the dehorner to them.
But then we would not have any Mormon church and we would miss out on all this fun....

Christian

06-16-2015, 12:08 PM

STILL NOT ONE REASON to choose ANY one over the others. . .

NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that ANY of them are from God OR are 'the right one.'

LOTSA 'prophets' that can't prophesy.

LOTSA 'apostles' that aren't apostles of God.

BUT NO EVIDENCE that any of them are from God or "the right one."

Christian

06-16-2015, 12:11 PM

In other words, you have no intelligent information to offer. I SEEE. . .

Phoenix

06-16-2015, 02:55 PM

I believe the news story informs us that the penalty for the thing that Joe was guilty of is around 10 years....
the penalty, in 1840, for marrying a 14-year-old was....nothing, since it wasn't against the law.

I think that sounds about right....
me too

But if they wanted to really solve these guy's problem they should take the dehorner to them.
that's not a nice thing to wish to happen to the virgin mary's husband, 2015 years ago, for the 'crime' of marrying a teen-ager.

But then we would not have any Mormon church and we would miss out on all this fun....
so let's think about this: if you had your wish, and you had been able to go back in time and castrate the virgin mary's fiance, then jesus would have had no siblings, including James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon, plus the sisters that the Bible says were also born to Joseph and Mary.

why do you think that would have been "fun" ?

Christian

06-16-2015, 05:21 PM

phoenix posted:

the penalty, in 1840, for marrying a 14-year-old was....nothing, since it wasn't against the law.

Since I am fairly CERTAIN you have NEVER RESEARCHED that law in ANY state for the year 1840, your claim remains a pathetic, baseless joke. IF that had been the case, would it have made pedophilia 'okay' for you?

But if they wanted to really solve these guy's problem they should take the dehorner to them.

that's not a nice thing to wish to happen to the virgin mary's husband, 2015 years ago, for the 'crime' of marrying a teen-ager.

When did you first begin to believe joe smith was the husband of the virgin mary 2015 years ago? Oh, and wasn't there a SIX year error in the Julian calendar?

so let's think about this: if you had your wish, and you had been able to go back in time and castrate the virgin mary's fiance, then jesus would have had no siblings, including James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon, plus the sisters that the Bible says were also born to Joseph and Mary.

More delusions about joey smith being the husband of the virgin mary? It is most likely that HER Joseph was only a year or two older than her, not a dirty old man like joey smith.

why do you think that would have been "fun" ?

To have castrated joey smith might have been appropriate. Fun? No.

alanmolstad

06-16-2015, 09:17 PM

Christian:

here is an interesting thing I found on the web on the topic..

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/teen_polygamy.htm

alanmolstad

06-16-2015, 09:24 PM

Christian:

here is an interesting thing I found on the web on the topic..

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/teen_polygamy.htm

Phoenix

06-17-2015, 02:36 PM

Since I am fairly CERTAIN you have NEVER RESEARCHED that law in ANY state for the year 1840, your claim remains a pathetic, baseless joke

"I charted those in comparison to my Illinois Census reconstruction, of marriage cohorts in 1850 and 1880, and against some Mormon marriage cohorts. For good measure we added a county more out on the frontier (Hitch****, Nebraska) that had about the same sample size as Joseph’s set. Not surprisingly, it had a higher frequency of 14 year old brides than those married to Joseph Smith." http://blog.fairmormon.org/2011/06/21/signature-books-too-hasty/

More delusions about joey smith being the husband of the virgin mary?
the delusion is believing that if Mary was 14 when she married Joseph of Nazareth, then Joseph was a child molester who deserved to be shot, castrated, or both.

i think that is an extreme belief to hold. it is way out in right field, where the westboro baptist doctrines are.

alanmolstad

06-17-2015, 05:28 PM

Adam pointed to his wife ,

She sinned before him,so that should mean he gets away with it right?

that is the heart of the "defense" that the Mormons are attempting to pull now.

First we had on this forum the complete Mormon denial that Joe Smith ever married any underage children.

But now the Mormon tune has changed...
Now they openly say the "Ok, we admit that Joe Smith married a 14 year old child"...

but to put a better spin of this they point to others who they suggest had done the same thing before Smith did...

this is the same thing Adam did.......

so sad......

Phoenix

06-17-2015, 07:32 PM

this is the same thing Adam did.......
So you also believe that Adam should have been castrated and shot for being a child molester? Is there anyone in the Bible who you don't think should have been shot and castrated?

do you know the bible story about how the true prophet of God commanded israel's army to take the daughters of the enemy to be their concubines?

what is your proof that this prophet was a true prophet, if he was giving such orders?

alanmolstad

06-17-2015, 08:00 PM

So you also believe that Adam should have been castrated and shot for being a child molester? Is there anyone in the Bible who you don't think should have been shot and castrated?

do you know the bible story about how the true prophet of God commanded israel's army to take the daughters of the enemy to be their concubines?

what is your proof that this prophet was a true prophet, if he was giving such orders?
You keep attempting to make the sins of Smith "look" better by listing others that you paint as doing the same thing...

This is what Adam did when he pointed to Eve...
This is what President Clinton did when he pointed to the children they said Jefferson had with a slave.

Do you really think this worked for Clinton?.....did it work when it was first tried by Adam?

But if its all you got to play with, then I understand the need to keep fluffing that argument up...

alanmolstad

06-18-2015, 04:47 AM

So you also believe that Adam should have been castrated and shot for being a child molester

From the news report I listed of the guy who was guilty of the very same thing Smith was guilty of we know for sure that - "Fourteen will get you ten"

alanmolstad

06-18-2015, 04:50 AM

.... castrated joey smith might have been appropriate. .

To that I must add:

Amen!

alanmolstad

06-18-2015, 04:55 AM

....

The Mormon founder Joe Smith was what we might consider a Dirty old man, who went after what we then can call an "8th grader"

The guy was sicko

Phoenix

06-18-2015, 05:40 AM

You keep attempting to make the sins of Smith "look" better by listing others that you paint as doing the same thing...
you keep attempting to make it look like what the Virgin Mary's husband did was a sin.

that is what the westboro baptists do.

This is what President Clinton did when he pointed to the republicans and accused them of sins they hadn't really committed.

Do you really think that will work for you?

does it really work for the westboro baptists?

Phoenix

06-18-2015, 05:56 AM

From the news report I listed of the guy who was guilty of the very same thing Smith was guilty of we know for sure that - "Fourteen will get you ten"

M***achusetts The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at fourteen years of age and females can marry at the age of twelve - See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html#sthash.tyST7ZIG.dpuf

Kansas The minimum age to get married is 15 in Kansas.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/

In France, until the French Revolution, the marriageable age was 12 years for girls and 14 for boys. Revolutionary legislation in 1792 increased the age to 13 years for girls and 15 for boys

Catholic Church: Minimum age for females: 14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

alanmolstad

06-18-2015, 06:02 AM

It must be embarr***ing for a religion that takes such pride in morality to yet need to search all over for ways to make a pevert's perversions look less sicko...all the while hearing a little voice in your head saying....."and he was our founder?"

Phoenix

06-18-2015, 11:06 AM

Still waiting for a reference that says marrying a 14 year old is a sin. Joseph Smith violated no moral principles when he married these girls. You keep overlooking the fact that marrying a 14 year old was MORAL, not just legal.

as i told him earlier, i admire the guts it takes for someone to claim to be a christian, and also claim that anyone who marries a 14 year old is a child molester who deserves to be castrated and shot. just glad time travel isn't possible, think of the famous men of the bible who would be castrated and shot by now.

disciple

06-18-2015, 12:13 PM

Still waiting for a reference that says marrying a 14 year old is a sin. Joseph Smith violated no moral principles when he married these girls. You keep overlooking the fact that marrying a 14 year old was MORAL, not just legal.

Would any one of you want a grown man to marry your 14 year old daughter? Some will say things were different back then. That would indicate that they think morality is something that changes over time and is dependent on the culture. Certain things are immoral in any society, and preying on the young and vulnerable is always wrong.

Phoenix

06-18-2015, 02:35 PM

Would any one of you want a grown man to marry your 14 year old daughter? Some will say things were different back then.
if you had been the virgin mary's dad, would you have wanted a grown man to marry your 14 year old daughter? Some will say things were different back then.

That would indicate that they think morality is something that changes over time and is dependent on the culture.
you believe that a real prophet told the armies of israel to commit genocide against other civilizations such as the amalekites. are you indicating that you think it was okay to commit genocide then, and it's still okay to do it today? or are you indicating that you think the morality of genocide has changed over time---and in the culture of the ancient israelites, it was okay because they believed that a prophet of god had commanded them to slaughter the men, women, and children and pets of the other civilization?

Certain things are immoral in any society, and preying on the young and vulnerable is always wrong.
so you believe that what god told the israelites to do was wrong. and abraham preying on isaac was wrong--that was child abuse in your mind, right? do you wish you could go back in time and castrate and shoot moses, joshua, and abraham?

aren't your beliefs kind of weird for a bible-worshiping christian to have?

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 04:39 AM

. Certain things are immoral in any society, and preying on the young and vulnerable is always wrong.

Cheating on your wife is also wrong, as is using your position in a religion to get young girls into bed with you.

But if Mormons are able to overlook Smith's perversions with underage girls, how can we expect them to not try to also justify adultery and religious hypocrisy???

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 04:45 AM

So Joseph of old was wrong to marry Mary?
Yes, if Joseph was already married to a girl and then tried to get away with another marriage to a different girl.
That is called adultry, and is wrong.
Jesus teaches us that God made them "Male and female" , not "Male and female, and another female and a 14 year old girl for a little something on the side"

and....

Since there is no verse that teaches that Mary was 14 years old (or underage at all) we can not condemn Joseph for the same thing that we can know the Mormon founder Joe Smith was guilty of..

disciple

06-19-2015, 05:56 AM

So Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob committed adultery then which means the 12 tribes of Israel are because of sin? There have been times where God commanded polygamy. So far your arguments have just been desperate attempts. You need to try something else because this topic just doesn't work for you.

If anyone is desperate, it is to see you have a real relationship with Jesus Christ. That being said, it is your right to believe whatever you want and everyone else's
right to disagree if they wish. In regard to the founder of your religion it is a question of character, 1st Timothy chap 3 states,"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a overseer, he desireth a good work. A overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,". This was God's design for one who would lead or rule over others, he must be above reproach. Obviously Joseph Smith's desire to wed a 14 year old girl was greater than his desire to follow God's plan for leaders in the church, which in turn calls into question all his claims.

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 06:38 AM

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 06:45 AM

If anyone is desperate, it is to see you have a real relationship with Jesus Christ. That being said, it is your right to believe whatever you want and everyone else's
right to disagree if they wish. In regard to the founder of your religion it is a question of character, 1st Timothy chap 3 states,"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a overseer, he desireth a good work. A overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,". This was God's design for one who would lead or rule over others, he must be above reproach. Obviously Joseph Smith's desire to wed a 14 year old girl was greater than his desire to follow God's plan for leaders in the church, which in turn calls into question all his claims.

Well said!

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 06:56 AM

So now Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sinned when they had multiple wives? Glad you admit you think they were sinners. God gave David 4 married women so I guess you think God sinned too. Again, where do the scriptures say marrying a 14 year old is a sin? Still waiting. It seems like you do not believe God is the same yesterday, today and forever, but rather the same every once in a while.

Pointing to the sins of others is not a defense

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 07:18 AM

Listing all the names of people who are guilty of sin does not make the stain of your own sin fade away.

You don't convince God that you can't be held guilty by pointing to others who sined first.
Adam tried that ....it did not work

disciple

06-19-2015, 07:37 AM

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as prophets were overseers, and each had more than one wife. I guess they were bad overseers too. My relationship with Jesus Christ is very strong which is why it is easy for me not to doubt His choices as to who He chooses to lead His church. And again, where does any scripture say marrying a 14 year old is a sin? Do you guys completely ignore Jewish history and its laws about who can marry and when?

The church today is not Israel, we are not under the same covenant. The Old Testament was given for us but it is not all to us. Does the church offer the blood of animals for a sacrifice today? Does the church observe all the Holy Days commanded to the Jews, do we have cities of refuge, etc, etc. What ever Israel did under the command of God we cannot question but when a man chooses his own desire over the plan of God he cannot be trusted, especially if he claims to have a new revelation.

teenapenny

06-19-2015, 10:54 AM

You keep repeating yourself but you haven't understood one thing that has been said. ABRAHAM AND THE OTHER PROPHETS DID NOT SIN WHEN THEY PRACTICED POLYGAMY. You are pointless to talk with because you cannot understand what others say, that or you purposely choose to twist what others say.
Say who? I do not think you know what you are talking about.

Phoenix

06-19-2015, 10:54 AM

Pointing to the sins of others is not a defense

calling what the virgin mary's husband did (marry her when she was a teen-ager) a sin, does not make it a sin.

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 11:44 AM

Abraham did many things that were clearly wrong and sinfull.
So attempting to hide Smith's sins behind the sins of another is error

Phoenix

06-19-2015, 12:49 PM

List all the sins that the Bible says were committed by Joseph the Nazarene Carpenter.

alanmolstad

06-19-2015, 06:15 PM

List all the sins that the Bible says were committed by Joseph the Nazarene Carpenter.
Well for example, he married that one 14 year old child...no wait......, the bible does not teach he did marry a 14 year old girl, so...

How about when he committed adultery when was married to one girl and then turned around and married another girl?....no wait, the Bible does not teach that he did that....um...so I guess I don't really know from the text what sins he committed common to men.

Thus we cant use the life of Saint Joseph to defend the perversions of the Mormon founder Joe Smith

Phoenix

06-19-2015, 08:37 PM

Well for example, he married that one 14 year old child...no wait......, the bible does not teach he did marry a 14 year old girl, so...

www.womenintheancientworld.com/wom...
Women In The Ancient World
. Girls typically married at age 12 or 13, immediately after ****rty, so one .

discover-the-truth.com/.../bible-child-marriage-in-ancient-israelite-times-...Sep 14, 2013 -
In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. ... ... girls were recommend to be married at the age of 12

WOMEN AND THE LAW IN ANCIENT ISRAEL
The Halakhah and the Talmud were very clear: a woman could have only one husband but a man could have as many wives as he wished and as he had the ability to support.

www.truthortradition.com/articles/mary-a-teenage-bride-and-mother
... In ancient Israel, girls married in their teens, even early teens.

alanmolstad

06-20-2015, 12:12 AM

The Bible doesn't but history does. Do you read any books other than the Bible? Its the word of God with the Book of Mormon but there are things it doesn't talk about at all. Yes, Mary was 14.

Outstanding claims need outstanding proof....you have none..

Not a single verse?
Nothing.....

Not even 1/2 a verse you might twist into teaching what you wanted?
Nothing...

FAIL!

alanmolstad

06-20-2015, 06:47 AM

....
Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that the Bible doesn't tell us .......

Im pointing out that the Bible does not tell us what you clearly would have wanted it to say!..... :) :)

A person cant take a lack of Bible verses in the Bible as a means to support something that is not found in the Bible!

An example is?...An example is that there is no place in the Bible that teaches that Jesus drove a FORD TRUCK.
So you cant in the next moment turn around and say, "Show me in the Bible where is clearly says "Jesus did not drive a Ford Truck????"!

Here is the personal rule I use when dealing with the more crazy issues that different religions and Cults come out with-

- Outstanding claims need outstanding proof -

Another example, I dont believe anywhere in the Bible it says that Jesus was married. However the Bible does tell us about the age of Jesus at several points of his life.
Now at times Jesus is old enough that many men his age were always married.

But so what???
Because the Bible never says "Jesus was married" we cant turn around and say he was married based on a LACK of supporting Bible verses!!!!

We cant say, "Show me where it says clearly, "Jesus was never married" as a way to support the idea he was married.

It does not matter SQUAT what some university teacher might say "other people" were doing at that time!

Let me say that again-
On matters of religious Christian doctrine it does not matter SQUAT what some university professor might think was common for "other people" at the time as a means to sneak into doctrine ideas not supported clearly from the text!

Here is another personal rule I use when dealing with crazy teachings out of some religions-

- Unless its found in the Bible, you cant use it as doctrine -

I will give you another example where people try to use a LACK of supporting Bible verses as support for their claims:

Here is a question I run into all the time:
"In the story of Genesis, where does Cain get his wife?"
Now the real answer from the Bible to this question is- "The Bible does not tell us"

That is the only answer that you can support from the text!
No other answer is able to stand up to criticism.
All the other answers men have dreamed up to answer this question are a big pile of FAIL because they simply will NEVER be something you can trust because there simply is nothing you can proof with the Text!!!!!!

But some people just dont care.
When talking about the subject of Cain's wife they use the lack of a Bible verse as proof of their ideas.
They say, "Well if he did not marry a sister who did he marry?"

So they have turned the question around and tried to make it look like the answer they have is "his sister" is the only answer supported by the text....and challenged us to find a verse that proves their answer wrong!!!
In other words, they dreamed-up their answer and now act as if its the only correct answer...

But the truth is that their answer is just as invented as all the other answers people have come up with for this question about Cain's wife...
all are just "ideas"....dreamed up ideas that some men bend the knee to.

Some people think that if they can get enough names on a list of people that all think the same that this must count?..........

Once again that is -
EPIC FAIL!

My final comment and conclusions:

We don't know where Cain got his wife from.
We can't teach that Jesus was ever married.
We can't teach we know the age of Mary at any point of her story.

Thus.....
Any Mormon today that hopes to put a better "look" to the many perversions of their founder Joe Smith, can not try to use the life of the mother of Jesus in their misguided effort!

Here is another personal rule I use when I think about all that I teach-

- The good Christian Bible students cant teach as doctrine ideas that are not found in the Bible -!

alanmolstad

06-20-2015, 10:43 AM

Im pointing out that the Bible does not tell us what you clearly would have wanted it to say!..... :) :)

A person cant take a lack of Bible verses in the Bible as a means to support something that is not found in the Bible!

An example is?...An example is that there is no place in the Bible that teaches that Jesus drove a FORD TRUCK.
So you cant in the next moment turn around and say, "Show me in the Bible where is clearly says "Jesus did not drive a Ford Truck????"!

Here is the personal rule I use when dealing with the more crazy issues that different religions and Cults come out with-

- Outstanding claims need outstanding proof -

Another example, I dont believe anywhere in the Bible it says that Jesus was married. However the Bible does tell us about the age of Jesus at several points of his life.
Now at times Jesus is old enough that many men his age were always married.

But so what???
Because the Bible never says "Jesus was married" we cant turn around and say he was married based on a LACK of supporting Bible verses!!!!

We cant say, "Show me where it says clearly, "Jesus was never married" as a way to support the idea he was married.

It does not matter SQUAT what some university teacher might say "other people" were doing at that time!

Let me say that again-
On matters of religious Christian doctrine it does not matter SQUAT what some university professor might think was common for "other people" at the time as a means to sneak into doctrine ideas not supported clearly from the text!

Here is another personal rule I use when dealing with crazy teachings out of some religions-

- Unless its found in the Bible, you cant use it as doctrine -

I will give you another example where people try to use a LACK of supporting Bible verses as support for their claims:

Here is a question I run into all the time:
"In the story of Genesis, where does Cain get his wife?"
Now the real answer from the Bible to this question is- "The Bible does not tell us"

That is the only answer that you can support from the text!
No other answer is able to stand up to criticism.
All the other answers men have dreamed up to answer this question are a big pile of FAIL because they simply will NEVER be something you can trust because there simply is nothing you can proof with the Text!!!!!!

But some people just dont care.
When talking about the subject of Cain's wife they use the lack of a Bible verse as proof of their ideas.
They say, "Well if he did not marry a sister who did he marry?"

So they have turned the question around and tried to make it look like the answer they have is "his sister" is the only answer supported by the text....and challenged us to find a verse that proves their answer wrong!!!
In other words, they dreamed-up their answer and now act as if its the only correct answer...

But the truth is that their answer is just as invented as all the other answers people have come up with for this question about Cain's wife...
all are just "ideas"....dreamed up ideas that some men bend the knee to.

Some people think that if they can get enough names on a list of people that all think the same that this must count?..........

Once again that is -
EPIC FAIL!

My final comment and conclusions:

We don't know where Cain got his wife from.
We can't teach that Jesus was ever married.
We can't teach we know the age of Mary at any point of her story.

Thus.....
Any Mormon today that hopes to put a better "look" to the many perversions of their founder Joe Smith, can not try to use the life of the mother of Jesus in their misguided effort!

Here is another personal rule I use when I think about all that I teach-

- The good Christian Bible students cant teach as doctrine ideas that are not found in the Bible -!

Another one of the best comments I have yet posted on this forum!...

I truly did work a long time on what I say here and how I say it.
I tried to dig into the heart of my thoughts on this topic as well as I looked for other issues that also are connected to this same issue.

Im very happy with the way it all turned out and I think I may copy/past it to a topic I have going where I want to bring together in one place many of the comments I have posted that I believe are some of my best.

Christian

06-20-2015, 04:07 PM

Erunder posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianAccording to GOD, Christ's church never fractured either.

God didn't say that.

Yes He did:

1 John 2:18-1918 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. NKJV

So people who leave CHRIST'S church were never really PART of it (never had FAITH in Jesus Christ) in reality.

And CHRIST'S CHURCH remains intact, not losing ANYTHING.

When Groups of folks leave CHRISTIANITY

Like when Luther et al. left Christianity to invent Protestantism?

Luther et al NEVER LEFT Christianity. They left a corrupt, apostate organization that had long NOT BEEN Christian.

And the imaginary 'protestant church' is an invention of the rcc, not of CHRIST'S CHURCH. It is an imaginary 'dumping ground' on which they unload EVERY NON CATHOLIC RELIGION (including mormonism, branch davidianism, unitarianism, jwism, etc etc etc) group into. It simply means 'non-catholic.'

Luther left the corrupt NON-Christian organization to find Jesus Christ.

Joe smith invented HIS OWN NEW RELIGION.

Sorry, but your religion never existed before joey smith invented it. You cannot find it anywhere in historical reality.

Christian

07-04-2015, 09:50 AM

child posted:

You just contradicted yourself. The church of Jesus Christ existed and then when it became corrupt, it became what we refer to as the Roman Catholic Church.

Apparently reading with understanding is NOT your strong-point. I said the church of Jesus Christ existed, and when the romans (a tiny PART of it) became corrupted, the corrupted ones were not part of the original.

Like the Apostle John wrote:

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

Those who corrupted the rcc (a SMALL PART OF Christianity) were NOT part of CHRIST'S church when they corrupted the rcc. Those who left the CORRUPT RCC were attempting to return to TRUE CHRISTIANITY.

The mormon cult, invented in the 1830's by joey smith, didn't even exist back then. The mormon cult has NEVER BEEN part of CHRIST'S church.

Martin Luther said Christianity was no longer on the earth which means Jesus Christ's church didn't exist anymore by Martin's own admission.

I notice you never CITED Luther, but simply made a parroted UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.

If the tree has gone bad then the fruits of the same tree are also bad. The tree of the fruit called Protestantism is the Roman Catholic Church.

The rcc is indeed bad. Protestantism is something INVENTED BY the rcc, is NOT the rcc itself. Your ignorance on the subject is underwhelming.

Joseph Smith invented nothing, he restored the church of Jesus Christ as it was originally set up with doctrines from God, not men. It is in the New Testament.

IF THAT WERE TRUE (and it isn't) THEN the mormon-specific doctrines would all be IN the New Testament.

YOU CANNOT SHOW THEM TO BE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AT ALL.

NOT ONE SINGLE MAN 'exalted' to godhood
NOT ONE SINGLE REAL GOD other than the ONE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a 'prophet' or 'seer' or 'president' EVER OVER ALL OF CHRIST'S CHURCH.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN ever being baptized for the dead.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN being a member of the Aaronic Priesthood GOD established
NOT ONE SINGLE STATEMENT that 'apostles' must be mortally with CHRIST'S CHURCH in every generation.
NOT ONE SINGLE THING about the mormon religion at all.

BUT

Warnings AGAINST false prophets, false christs, and false gospels such as yours.

Joseph Smith INVENTED HIS OWN NEW RELIGION. He RESTORED nothing.

IF you think joey 'restored' Christ's church, PLEASE SHOW US the mormon-specific doctrines defined in the BIBLE.

Personally, I don't believe you can.

Christian

07-04-2015, 05:46 PM

cog posted:

Originally Posted by Christian
(http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=163602#post163602)
child posted:

You just contradicted yourself. The church of Jesus Christ existed and then when it became corrupt, it became what we refer to as the Roman Catholic Church.

Apparently reading with understanding is NOT your strong-point. I said the church of Jesus Christ existed, and when the romans (a tiny PART of it) became corrupted, the corrupted ones were not part of the original.

Like the Apostle John wrote:

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

Those who corrupted the rcc (a SMALL PART OF Christianity) were NOT part of CHRIST'S church when they corrupted the rcc. Those who left the CORRUPT RCC were attempting to return to TRUE CHRISTIANITY.

The mormon cult, invented in the 1830's by joey smith, didn't even exist back then. The mormon cult has NEVER BEEN part of CHRIST'S church.

Martin Luther said Christianity was no longer on the earth which means Jesus Christ's church didn't exist anymore by Martin's own admission.

I notice you never CITED Luther, but simply made a parroted UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.

If the tree has gone bad then the fruits of the same tree are also bad. The tree of the fruit called Protestantism is the Roman Catholic Church.

The rcc is indeed bad. Protestantism is something INVENTED BY the rcc, is NOT the rcc itself. Your ignorance on the subject is underwhelming.

Joseph Smith invented nothing, he restored the church of Jesus Christ as it was originally set up with doctrines from God, not men. It is in the New Testament.

IF THAT WERE TRUE (and it isn't) THEN the mormon-specific doctrines would all be IN the New Testament.

YOU CANNOT SHOW THEM TO BE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AT ALL.

NOT ONE SINGLE MAN 'exalted' to godhood
NOT ONE SINGLE REAL GOD other than the ONE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a 'prophet' or 'seer' or 'president' EVER OVER ALL OF CHRIST'S CHURCH.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN ever being baptized for the dead.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN being a member of the Aaronic Priesthood GOD established
NOT ONE SINGLE STATEMENT that 'apostles' must be mortally with CHRIST'S CHURCH in every generation.
NOT ONE SINGLE THING about the mormon religion at all.

BUT

Warnings AGAINST false prophets, false christs, and false gospels such as yours.

Joseph Smith INVENTED HIS OWN NEW RELIGION. He RESTORED nothing.

IF you think joey 'restored' Christ's church, PLEASE SHOW US the mormon-specific doctrines defined in the BIBLE.

Personally, I don't believe you can.

Actually I have given the source for Martin Luther saying that before. Unlike you, I can back up what I say.

And yet you CANNOT CITE Martin Luther ever saying any such thing. Merely FALSELY CLAIMING you can back up what you say, IS NOT A CITATION.

Okay, we can see you cannot CITE any such thing.

I've read the scriptures my entire life, that's how I learned how to read.

I started STUDYING (not just cursory 'reading') the Bible about 50 years ago. How long has your cursory reading been? 10 years?

Yet you STILL CANNOT FIND ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ANY Of the mormon-specific doctrines. Joey smith made them all up.

STILL STANDING PROOF:

NOT ONE SINGLE MAN 'exalted' to godhood
NOT ONE SINGLE REAL GOD other than the ONE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a 'prophet' or 'seer' or 'president' EVER OVER ALL OF CHRIST'S CHURCH.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN ever being baptized for the dead.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN being a member of the Aaronic Priesthood GOD established
NOT ONE SINGLE STATEMENT that 'apostles' must be mortally with CHRIST'S CHURCH in every generation.
NOT ONE SINGLE THING about the mormon religion at all.

BUT

Warnings AGAINST false prophets, false christs, and false gospels such as yours.

I am a member of Jesus Christ's church. The gospel, which was lost, has been restored.

You are a member of a FALSE christ's religion that joey smith INVENTED, with a FALSE GOSPEL and FALSE GODS which joey smith INVENTED.

The REAL Gospel was never lost. It can be found beginning in 1 Corinthians 15:1. There have been copies of that gospel extant for about 2,000 years now.

Joey smith's INVENTED religon has only been around less than 200 years. HIS religion (whichever of the 150+ smith religions that CLAIM to be HIS religion)(YOU STILL HAVE GIVEN US NO REASON TO BELIEVE HIS RELIGION IS NOT THE FLDS OR RLDS VERSIONS). Those who follow smith will be led by him to Hell.

Why don't you ask God instead of relying on your fellow critics. I've already shown the doctrines that have been restored and even gave references, you ignore them every time. That's called denial.

I pointed out that I DID ask God (I never have relied on any 'fellow critics,' though I guess they DO agree with what I know SCRIPTURALLY), and GOD SAID NO, SMITH WAS A LIAR, NOT OF GOD AT ALL. I have told you that.

And NEVER ONCE have you EVER SHOWN ONE SCRIPTURE that supports smith's junk. . .

NOT ONE SINGLE MAN 'exalted' to godhood
NOT ONE SINGLE REAL GOD other than the ONE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a 'prophet' or 'seer' or 'president' EVER OVER ALL OF CHRIST'S CHURCH.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN ever being baptized for the dead.
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN being a member of the Aaronic Priesthood GOD established
NOT ONE SINGLE STATEMENT that 'apostles' must be mortally with CHRIST'S CHURCH in every generation.
NOT ONE SINGLE THING about the mormon religion at all.

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE you can justify smith's INVENTIONS, then SHOW US THE SCRIPTURES THAT SUPPORT THE ABOVE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT AS YOU CLAIM YOU DID.

If you CANNOT, we will know, because you will once again offer EXCUSES instead.

Christian

07-05-2015, 07:45 PM

child posted:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In these verses we have God (the Father) telling someone else, Jehovah (Jesus), that we are made in their image. Plurality of gods in that the speaker is referred to as God and says we are made in THEIR image which means the other being spoken to is a God also.

SHOW US where it says they are MULTIPLE GODS saying that, and NOT God and some of His angels. . .

I guess you think GOD LIED when He told us through Isaiah:

Isa 43:9-10
Or let them hear and say, "It is truth."
10 "You are My witnesses," says the Lord,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
NKJV

and

Isa 43:9-10
Or let them hear and say, "It is truth."
10 "You are My witnesses," says the Lord,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
NKJV

and

Isa 44:8
8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

TYPICAL CULT PLOYS. . .try to redefine a scripture, IGNORING THE REST OF THE BIBLE, in an effort to discredit the BIBLE ITSELF.

Sorry, but it didn't work.

Phoenix

07-05-2015, 09:54 PM

I can go on and on with evidences. You're right, I can't give one, I can give MANY to show support for our beliefs. The most important thing, however, is asking God if the Book of Mormon is true. The reality is you NEVER DID. You would claim that the "wrong God" or the devil would tell us its true. Only the devil would lead someone to believe the Book of Mormon is false because it testifies of Christ, something Satan won't do. He will never persuade people to follow Jesus Christ. You never asked God if the book is true so again, ask God, with an open heart instead of your close minded critical heart, if its true.

Does God love us enough to restore His church to the earth or not?

My answer is yes, he does love us enough to fix things as many times as humans mess them up, as long as there are enough humble people to make it worth the effort. He proved that after the garden of Eden, and the flood, and with Israel. And with the state that Catholicism fell into at the time of the reformation. Surely he is willing and able fix things again, when Protestantism fell into a bad state of affairs.

Christian

07-06-2015, 06:42 AM

child posted:

Ignore? You mean like ignoring the quote by Martin Luther, the citation you asked for? The one I provided?

You mean the one YOU HAVE NEVER CITED. I guess you don't KNOW what 'cite' means. . .it does NOT mean that you just 'CLAIM' you gave a citation when you have never done so.

You're the only one who ignores anything.

Yah, SURE. . .you think YOU are the only one paying attention. . .Ya SURE!

You gave scripture references that you don't understand the contexts of.

I gave a list of scriptures that CONTRADICT what your religion teaches. THE SCRIPTURES SAY SO. The CONTEXT IS CLEAR. ONLY ONE REAL GOD EXISTS ANYWHERE, contrary to your cult's claims that there are MANY real gods over MANY worlds and despite your religion's claim that YOU COULD POSSIBLY BECOME A GOD JUST LIKE THE REAL GOD(just like satan in the Garden told Eve) .

I gave a LIST of references WITH an explanation of their meanings.

Isa 43:9-10
Or let them hear and say, "It is truth."
10 "You are My witnesses," says the Lord,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
NKJV

and

Isa 43:9-10
Or let them hear and say, "It is truth."
10 "You are My witnesses," says the Lord,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
NKJV

and

Isa 44:8
8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

EXCEPT for the fact that I THEN WENT THROUGH EACH of your 'references' and showed that they did NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED AT ALL.

So now I accuse God of lying by answering your question about providing evidence?

No, I merely pointed out that your religion CONTRADICTS the God of the Bible in WHAT HE SAID, listed above. You IGNORED the Whole of the Bible.

Wow. Again, you're in denial.

UNTIL you can provide CITATIONS for your claims about Luther, and UNTIL you can demonstrate that GOD DID NOT SAY HE IS THE ONLY GOD ANYWHERE AS I LISTED ABOVE, I DO deny that joey smith's NEW MANMADE RELIGION IS FROM GOD.

I have pointed out that the verses you gave did NOT SAY what you claimed, DID NOT APPLY to the conversation at hand, and/or were taken OUT OF CONTEXT FROM WHAT THE WRITERS WERE WRITING ABOUT.

Merely 'throwing out scriptures' that don't support your case, then giving irrational, UNBIBLICAL 'explanations,' YOU MIGHT TRY DEALING WITH WHAT THE BIBLE DOES SAY.

In the meantime, why don't you address the OP? Can't come up with a GODLY answer?

Christian

07-19-2015, 04:55 PM

STILL NO REASON to pick the utah mormon splinter group out of the other splinter groups to believe it is 'the church joe smith built...' I guess they have NO HONEST REASONS TO NOT BELIEVE the rlds or flds or temple lot lds groups ARE THE REAL SMITH CHURCH!

Christian

07-19-2015, 05:04 PM

berry posted:

Originally Posted by Christian

Funny thing. . .He NEVER ONCE MENTIONED
an aaronic priesthood[COLOR=#008000] in the CHRISTIAN church.

Christ never mentioned any "priesthood" term in His NT ministry. Does that mean this is a false priesthood?

1 Peter 2:5-9---King James Version (KJV)
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;[/QUOTE]

Of course the p***age you quote SAYS NOTHING ABOUT AARONIC priests at all. NEITHER does it limit the ROYAL PRIESTHOOD to men and boys (The Aaronic priesthood required you to be 30-50 years old, so your kids wouldn't qualify anyway), but the ROYAL PRIESTHOOD (above) includes ALL BELIEVERS. You left out a BUNCH of important stuff:
1 Peter 2:7-8
7 Therefore, [B]to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
NKJV

Are you willing to AGREE that ALL BELIEVERS, MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN are members of THIS PRIESTHOOD?

ARE YOU UNWILLING TO AGREE THIS IS NOT THE "AARONIC" priesthood?

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.