Smith made sure nobody could SEE anything. . .

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

We can go over this time after time.....we can reword the question each time........

In an effort to stop us from going over and over the same question as I talk about in the above post, Im going to try something here now.
Too many times when a Christian such as myself attacks Smith's doctrines he puts the Mormon he is talking to on the defensive and at that point the ability of the christian to reach the Mormon simply comes to a halt.

Well I don't want that to happen, so I need to think of a way to get my point across to you without directly attacking a doctrine of smith, yet will show you why Smith's doctrines were all wet .


So, Im going to need a new teaching....something unknown before ...something no one has ever brought up on this topic, something totally unconnected to Smith or his doctrines.

(are you ready? Here we go)



A STORY:

One day Alan is out for a walk and suddenly an angel from heaven appears to him.
Alan stops, and kneels to the ground and asks, "What can I do for you?"

The angel speaks, "Alan, you have found favor with the Lord. Now rise and hear what the Lord commands you to do"

So Alan stands up, takes out a pad of paper and pen and starts to take careful notes.

The angel speaks, "This is what the Lord wants you to do. Take your car, drive backward to the next city. There the Lord asks you to get a *** pulling guts out of chickens for 2 years. At the end on the 2nd year the Lord asks you to get in your car and drive sideways back to this city"

Alan writes down the words the angels speaks, then speaks to the angel as he finished writing the last sentence-

"...sideways back to this city...",,,ok, right I got it. I shall do all that the lord has asked of me....It shall be done"

The angel smiles at how careful Alan was to record all that the angel had said, and then speaks once more to Alan.

The angel says, "Oh by the way Alan, the truth is that Jesus is female"

Alan looks up at the angel a moment, then closes his note pad, puts things back into his pockets, turns his back to the angel and returns to what he was doing a moment before the angel had appeared.

"Bite me!" Alan shouts over his shoulder at the surprised angel..."And you can go tell your god to go "Bite me" too"




-End of story-

So what is the point of this story?....The point is that God can tell us to do many new things,,,God is always busy with doing God-stuff, and so I can understand the from time to time to this very day the Lord is sending out his angels to carry His word to people.

So there is no problem with God telling us to do things, even to do things we dont fully understand the reason behind and might actually seem kinda crazy to us at first.

So the angel could tell you to drive a car backward to a different city and that is ok with you Alan?.....Yes!

But then in the story the moment the angel tells Alan that "Jesus is female" this seems to change things?....Yes!

Why?.... Telling us to do new and different things is fine. they are fine because they dont go against what is already told us about the faith in the bible.
But the moment the angel in the story tried to introduce a new teaching, it was a trip-wire....its how we know that the angel was actually NOT from Heaven!....


So why was it ok to ask Alan to do all kinds of crazy things, yet not ok to teach him something different about God?.....Because one thing was against what we know from the bible about the faith that was "once for all given" and the others were not.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I already answered this issue.....

You know you haven't answered my questions. What isn't known for sure, is why.

Now would you like to ask that same question a few more times?....

I don't want to re-ask those questions you aren't answering, but I will re-ask until you answer them because it is important that you answer them because they address the validity of your post that inspired them.

Do you think if you reword the same question a few different ways that you might get a different answer from me one time?.....

I don't want to re-word them. I want you address them exactly as they currently exist.

Is that what you are thinking?

No

By the way, did you notice how I directly answer your questions with direct, non-evasive answers, including "yes" or "no" where appropriate? Is there any chance you can do me that courtesy as well? It would cut down on unnecessary "friction" in my opinion, and save us both time, and would therefore be appreciated.

Look.... Paul clearly knew what to warn us about dealing with Smith' s claims....

Aren't my questions more about your position on messages from God than they are about Smith's claims?

Paul's instructions on how to respond to Smith are clear...

I am not Smith. You need to respond to me, not him.

We can go over this time after time.....

The thing is, we don't need to go over it time after time if you'd stop the evasiveness. One time would be enough.

We can reword the question each time.

I don't see a need to re-word my questions. They are fine just the way I originally typed them.

...but the answer of "Bite me'" is still my only answer.

The question is: Is it the correct answer? Your "reluctance" to answer my questions might make people think you're not sure that it is.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You know .....

"You know...."
(Let me tell you what I know)

What I know, is that I spent a lot of time on the answers to all your questions in the posts that are already there for you to read.

I actually woke up last night at around 1:00 in the morning and fired up my computer when the idea I had to approach this from a non-confrontational "Jesus is female" story idea popped into my head.

Im afraid that is about the best way I have to reach out to you with this.


but....

But I am also an example of Proverbs 16:32, so lets see if I cant go over the same questions,with my same answer of "Bite Me" in a way that is not too boring for both of us to read though?

_–---------_--------------------------------------------------------


My answer is "Bite me"


My answer to all the "But what if God says...?" questions is "God can tell us all kinds of new and interesting and fun things, but God also can not say even one small word that goes against what is already clearly taught in the Bible"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the heart of what Im saying.
But because I got a little time left before i have to get going to work, I will push on with more of this answer.
I will try to write stuff in a non-confrontational manner, not offending anyone of any faith yet still getting back to the heart of what i have said above-


So God can tell us new things about himself and about Jesus?.....Oh yes, God can bring to us all kinds of new things!

Like what for example?......Well God can tell us what Jesus looked like for one. That would be very cool to finally learn. There is nothing in the Bible that really deals with what Jesus looked like as a person.

So an angel could show up and tell us just stuff that is not talked about in the bible at all?....Well no, God can tell us about all kinds of stuff that is found in our Bible. Its just that what any angel or any prophet says can't DISAGREE with what is found in the Holy Bible. So we can learn all kinds of things that are new to us.

What you are talking about are the essential teachings of the bible correct?....Yes, the core christian teachings are presented in the text and found within the christian church.,

What about the non-essential doctrines of the many different denominations? for example about Mary? .....The same rule applies.
God can tell us all kinds of new and fun things about Mary, as long as what is being told to us does not disagree with what already appears in the bible.
What we find is that on many of the issues that the different sister churches disagree on issues that are more to do with different traditions and not based on the text.

For example lets say that a church teaches that Mary had red hair.
Lets say that there was a church that teaches that Mary had red hair, and to be a member of this church you also had to believe that Mary had red hair.
God can send an angel and tell us that Mary had green hair.
God is allowed to do this because there is nothing against God doing this in the Bible because Mary's hair color is not talked about in the bible.

The teachings about the hair color of Mary might be something that different denominations split over, but the disagreement is based on different traditions and not based on a Bible teaching.
Mary's hair color is a "non-essential" teaching.


So an angel can teach us all kinds of new non-essential things?....oh yes!
The list is endless of the things we might one day learn. things that the bible simply does not talk about, or things that do not disagree with the text as found right now.

But nothing essential?...No, for the Christian faith is already given to us, There is nothing new to be added that will change what we already have received in the bible.


So an angel could show up and tell us that we should all own guns?...yes and I would believe that, It does not go against the scripture we already have.

But an angel could not say that Jesus was female?....nope, the moment you hear an angel or a prophet try to bring out a new teaching like that you know its from Satan!

So what does this all mean when dealing with the story told by Joe Smith and his being visited by angels?
It means that the moment any of us hear an angel start to teach doctrine that is different than what we already have received in the Bible, that our correct response is to turn our backs to that angel (or whatever it is) and tell them to "Bite me, go get lost! And tell this god of yours that he can just get lost too"

But what if there are all kinds of angels singing "Holy, Holy, Holy" in the background?.....It doesn't matter, we were actually warned by Saint Paul to expect that the devil would one day show up in the form of a angel from heaven with a "different gospel"
we were told to expect this stuff that Smith claimed happened , and we were told what our response to such a story should be.

The words of Paul , his warnings are now fulfilled.

So it does not matter how many ways we re-ask the same question, my answer to the angel would always be to "Bite me"

[Ma'am]

Originally Posted by Christian

They couldn't 'see' what was printed on the supposed plates. They couldn't 'see' the plates later to see if they were 'translated' correctly. They couldn't 'see' any evidence of any 'Nephites' ever existing in the real world. You are supposed to BLINDLY BELIEVE that joey smith saw ANYONE/ANYTHING in the woods.

JESUS did HIS 'thing' out in the open before THOUSANDS of witnesses.
The Apostles did their 'thing' in the open before THOUSANDS of witnesses.
joey smith. . .requires hidden handshakes, tokens, special underwear, and magical phrases to do HIS 'thing.'

Comments?

in Jesus,
fish

Joe's things aren't God's "things."

[Ma'am]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

"a spiritual view" eh?
That kids, is one of the more funny sentences I have read in a long time...

Does anybody actually buy into that kinda.....um.....interesting 'answers' ?

It reminds me of something a child would say when they get caught red-handed....


I think the the Mormons should just stick with the cl***ic - "The dog ate it"
It would be a lot more believable.

Most of the original witnesses left the LDS, often angry at Joe Smith. They never recanted of "seeing" the golden plates, because if they did and admitted they had not, then they would have been guilty of knowingly perpetrating a fraud, that bilked people out of their hard-earned cash ,and they could have been brought up before a court of law on fraud charges. I think it's called "bunko" today.

[alanmolstad]

It has been a while from when I last have studied about the so-called witnesses of the Golden Mormon Plates and if any of them later changed their minds?

It would be interesting to see how many of the known people who had once claimed to have seen Joe's plates, that later on at one point or another changed their tune?

[Christian]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Remember the lost 119 pages. Oh jo was smart not to re-translate them. I wonder why?

Most likely because he couldn't remember the story he had told the first time. . .

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Zeus

Perhaps a little less mocking of others and their beliefs might invite more people to dialogue with you.

You missed the point Z. The point is that nobody but joey smith knew if any of the 'stuff' ON those supposed plates really MEANT anything at all. ALL you have is joey smith's word that there was any 'bom' on there at all. . .the whole mormon religion hangs on the word of joey smith, conman, peepstone gazer, necromancer, adulterer.

[alanmolstad]

http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses


I have been doing a search of the guys who at some point in history actually made a claim to have seen the Golden Plates that Smith claimed were real.

I found this website ( http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses ) and after reading what is there I have started to come to the same conclusion that a lot of former Mormons and Christian writers have also come to...

My conclusion?> I don't think the so-called witnesses saw squat!

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses


I have been doing a search of the guys who at some point in history actually made a claim to have seen the Golden Plates that Smith claimed were real.

I found this website ( http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses ) and after reading what is there I have started to come to the same conclusion that a lot of former Mormons and Christian writers have also come to...

My conclusion?> I don't think the so-called witnesses saw squat!

I believe it is called (groupthink) there have been many psychological studies over the years on why people see things that are not there in a group surrounding. There was just something on the TV last week on such a happening where people saw things that the camara clearly shown wasn't there.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

"You know...."
(Let me tell you what I know)

That is part of your problem IMO, and the main reason why your posts aren't achieving their desired outcome: Some of the things you claim to know, are actually only things you believe. And that becomes very important when you claim to know what God would or would not do, and what you personally will allow Him to do, or will prohibit Him from doing.

What I know, is that I spent a lot of time on the answers to all your questions in the posts that are already there for you to read.

Isn't it strange how you spent more time, and more creative effort, dancing around my questions than it would have taken to just answer them? Did you realize that answering my questions would show the one flaw in the foundation upon which your whole conclusion (that you have the ability to tell, with 100% accuracy and objectivity, whether a given message goes against the Bible or not) is built?

("Would Alan do something God told him to do, if what God said went against the teachings of the Bible?" My answer then is the same answer I got now....my answer is "No!"... I was ever told a message by God, (or an angel sent by God) that disagreed with what I read in the bible, that I would disregard the newer message in favor of the Bible's message... Therefore if any spirit, angel, or a divine being claiming to be 'a god' brings me a message that is different than what we already have in the Bible I would reject it instantly...if God were to send me an angel with a message, and a new set of teachings that go against the Bible?.....I believe my response to that angel would be "Bite me")

I actually woke up last night at around 1:00 in the morning and fired up my computer when the idea I had to approach this from a non-confrontational "Jesus is female" story idea popped into my head.

You constructed a fallacy where you used an example that virtually all of us would agree with, and used it to "prove" something that we would not agree with. Like saying "Oranges are obviously orange, therefore we can always know what color apples are."

Im afraid that is about the best way I have to reach out to you with this.

The best way to answer my questions would be to...answer my questions. I can guess as to your reasons for spending time and energy not answering them, but my preference would be that you just answer the questions so I don't have to guess.

But I am also an example of Proverbs 16:32

Then do you have the patience to just answer my questions?

Like what for example?......Well God can tell us what Jesus looked like for one. That would be very cool to finally learn. There is nothing in the Bible that really deals with what Jesus looked like as a person.

Then God could tell us whether Jesus got married, because that would be very cool to finally learn, and there is nothing in the Bible that really deals with whether He did or didn't. Do you disagree?

Now there is an additional question for you to answer, after you answer my original ones.

I sincerely look forward to your answers. I hope they are forthcoming.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Then God could tell us whether Jesus got married, because that would be very cool to finally learn, and there is nothing in the Bible that really deals with whether He did or didn't. Do you disagree?

(* = The following is just as far as I know)






There is nothing in the Bible about Jesus being married one way or the other.
There is no sin in being married.(Im married after all)
It does not change who Jesus is.
It does not change who God is.
It does not deal with the question of the path of salvation given us in our faith.
It does not deal with the resurrection.


There is nothing for the idea...in the Bible*
There is nothing against the idea...in the Bible*

Therefore if true, and this was the case then the Christian church would have no issues with believing it
If this were not the case then the Christian church would have no issues with that too.

It is a non-essential teaching therefore.


As I said before, God can tell us all kinds of new things, as long as the new revelation does not disagree in the smallest way with the 'faith that was once for all given"

Matters of what Jesus looked like, or his hair color, or if he got married, or if Jesus liked to play baseball, or if Jesus had a great singing voice, or a tin-ear.....all these such questions might be interesting to learn one day, but do not effect the Faith, Dont change who God is, Dont change anything at all...and therefore are a moot point.


There is a difference in learning something that is new, and with learning something that disagrees.

Jesus is male, this is a Bible teaching of our faith. (see 1st Tim 2:5)
This means that an angel can show up and teach me that Jesus was 5'11" tall and while this would be new information, it does not disagree with what the bible already says.

So because of this an angel can not teach that Jesus was female.

The angel is prohibited from teaching this.

Why?

Because God is prohibited from sending an angel to teach this.



So the Holy Spirit can move my heart to learn all kinds of new things and be moved to do all kinds of things no one has ever done before.
But the Holy Spirit can not get me to believe in something that goes against the bible.




So, if there is a verse in the Bible that teaches that Jesus was never married, or from the Old Test that predicted that the future King would never be married (I know of no such verse) then if an angel showed up and said "Jesus was married" I would tell that angel to "bite me"

[RealFakeHair]

If Jesus was married, He would have made a lousy husband. First He hung around 12 other men all day, went to parties with rich men and publicans. Had other women washing his feet with their hair, and didn't have a steady ***!

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

If Jesus was married,

There really is only the one story to look at when dealing with the question of Jesus being married, and that at John 2:1-11.

But there are a few words here that seem to suggest that it was not the wedding of Jesus personally, but that he and his men were just invited guests.

Aside from this one story the Bible really has nothing to say on the question one way or the other.


So what does this mean to my comments?...
It means that we cant run around and say "Jesus was married" because we cant use the lack of support in the Bible as the support for the idea.

You cant say, "We can believe he was married because there is nothing in the bible that says he wasn't"

So you cant twist the lack of support for a teaching into looking like it does support that teaching.

You need stronger support than "ZERO SUPPORT" for a teaching that is kinda huge like a guy being married or not...

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

There really is only the one story to look at when dealing with the question of Jesus being married, and that at John 2:1-11.

But there are a few words here that seem to suggest that it was not the wedding of Jesus personally, but that he and his men were just invited guests.

Aside from this one story the Bible really has nothing to say on the question one way or the other.


So what does this mean to my comments?...
It means that we cant run around and say "Jesus was married" because we cant use the lack of support in the Bible as the support for the idea.

You cant say, "We can believe he was married because there is nothing in the bible that says he wasn't"

So you cant twist the lack of support for a teaching into looking like it does support that teaching.

You need stronger support than "ZERO SUPPORT" for a teaching that is kinda huge like a guy being married or not...

You can also say I am the spitten image of Carry Grant, just because there is no picture of me looking like Carry Grant.
PS do not ask for my photos.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That is part of your problem IMO, and the main reason why your posts aren't achieving their desired outcome: Some of the things you claim to know, are actually only things you believe. And that becomes very important when you claim to know what God would or would not do, and what you personally will allow Him to do, or will prohibit Him from doing.


Isn't it strange how you spent more time, and more creative effort, dancing around my questions than it would have taken to just answer them? Did you realize that answering my questions would show the one flaw in the foundation upon which your whole conclusion (that you have the ability to tell, with 100% accuracy and objectivity, whether a given message goes against the Bible or not) is built?

("Would Alan do something God told him to do, if what God said went against the teachings of the Bible?" My answer then is the same answer I got now....my answer is "No!"... I was ever told a message by God, (or an angel sent by God) that disagreed with what I read in the bible, that I would disregard the newer message in favor of the Bible's message... Therefore if any spirit, angel, or a divine being claiming to be 'a god' brings me a message that is different than what we already have in the Bible I would reject it instantly...if God were to send me an angel with a message, and a new set of teachings that go against the Bible?.....I believe my response to that angel would be "Bite me")


You constructed a fallacy where you used an example that virtually all of us would agree with, and used it to "prove" something that we would not agree with. Like saying "Oranges are obviously orange, therefore we can always know what color apples are."


The best way to answer my questions would be to...answer my questions. I can guess as to your reasons for spending time and energy not answering them, but my preference would be that you just answer the questions so I don't have to guess.


Then do you have the patience to just answer my questions?


Then God could tell us whether Jesus got married, because that would be very cool to finally learn, and there is nothing in the Bible that really deals with whether He did or didn't. Do you disagree?

Now there is an additional question for you to answer, after you answer my original ones.

I sincerely look forward to your answers. I hope they are forthcoming.

What I find sad about this comment is that you believe totally in the JS vision but you have admitted here that if such a thing happened to you, you would reject it. You have forgotten that what JS was told went against what is written within the Bible. The many foreign doctrines of Mormonism that teach falsehoods such as temple marriage, baptism for the dead, pre-existence, becoming a god and creating ones own planet and populating it. Does any of this ring a bell?
The idea that Christ was married is so laughable and sad at the same time. If this were so, we'd have little demi-gods running around the earth. Christ's entire purpose was one thing, to come and die for mankind's sins, nothing more. He had no carnal desires no matter how anyone wants to paint this picture. If Satan couldn't tempt Christ do you think he would be tempted by women? Your god is a very weak god if you think so.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by neverending

What I find sad about this comment is that you believe totally in the JS vision but you have admitted here that if such a thing happened to you, you would reject it.

Where did I admit that?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Where did I admit that?

LOL...Just like then I wondered when they got the "universalism" comment too....

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Where did I admit that?

I beg your pardon for I read the comment all wrong, totally my fault.

[alanmolstad]

I forgive you..

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I forgive you..

me too. it happens.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

me too. it happens.

Thanks too for understanding. Have a good evening and weekend.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Much better.

100% TRUTH, that nobody could verify ONE WORD of the bom, whether it was from joe smith's imagination or if any of it at all came from the plates.

Just as I have been saying. . .

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Christian

100% TRUTH, that nobody could verify ONE WORD of the bom, whether it was from joe smith's imagination or if any of it at all came from the plates.

Just as I have been saying. . .

I can show the original language codex that were used by the scholars to do the translation. I don't ask to see the original plates, just a copy on paper of the original language.. The LDS can't or won't do that.. That makes the BofM that much less believable. We have one and only one man's word for the translation.. That isn't the was a scholarly translation is made.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

As for the issue of not allowing people to see the plates:

Here is what i think of that whole topic.

If I were wanting to fool people, then I would do about the same as what Smith did.

If I had some fake plates that I made myself, and then came up with a story about finding them in the backyard, the last thing I would do is try to really prove my story to people.

So--you believe that Smith faked an angel showing the three the plates in a vision?

Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris