Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SbT

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

[Father_JD]

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

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

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


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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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

[SavedbyTruth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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

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

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

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

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

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

SbT

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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

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

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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

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

Thanks for giving me the opportunity!

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

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

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

Brother Richard.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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

As Richard would say, "Very interesting"!!

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

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

Regards, Richard.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

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

Regards, Richard.

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

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

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

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

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

[Father_JD]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

[Father_JD]

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

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

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

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

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

[Father_JD]

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

[Father_JD]

I've exposed the Mormon modus operandi:

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

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

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

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

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

[Sara]

Originally Posted by seebok

Sure.

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

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

s.

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

[Father_JD]

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

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

Talk about old wive's tales!!

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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

Talk about old wive's tales!!

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

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

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

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

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

Trinity

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Sara

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

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

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

[Father_JD]

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

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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

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

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

R.

You are SOOO right on this one.

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

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

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

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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

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

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

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

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

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

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

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

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Sincerely, Priest, HankSaint and Richard.

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

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

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

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Sara

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

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

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Sara

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

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

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

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

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

[bcspace]

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

You are correct. There is just speculation.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Libby

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

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

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