Religion built upon a god who failed.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

This is like what the Mormon church seems also to be getting their followers ready to face....Getting ready to deal with the next shoe to drop
The shoe that Joe Smith did in-fact sleep around with underage girls, and that this should not matter to Mormon people still putting their trust in his motives.


This means that regardless of what shoe falls next when dealing with the sexual exploitation of children that Smith will be shown guilty of, it does not matter.

The true follower of the Mormon teachings is being some how "insulated" from facing the fact that the guy was a pedophile, a child molester, who abused his position within a religion that he came up with for self-promotion....




So, at that point what else could a Christin say to a Mormon in an effort to reach them?

Once a Mormon states that it really does not matter to them about Smith's sexual history with children, what point is there in thinking any other argument I might bring up would matter to them?...............

Did you just infer that I would condone pedophilia? Do you really believe that? When did I say it didn't matter if Joseph Smith were a pedophile? I thought i made my words clear as well. I never stated that. I would never follow the teachings of a sexual deviant. I think you misunderstood...I can't let the information I do not have affect the testimony that I DO have. I do not believe him to be a pedophile. In regards to Helen Mar Kimball...this wasn't a "marriage" in earthly terms or for "time" it was a sealing for eternity. There is no indication that they consummated said marriage (it's never been stated, inferred, suggested, or implied) as she, again, was not married to Smith in a conventional earthly way, and did not even live with Smith, but continued to live with her parents up until Joseph's death. This was dynastical in nature to link the families in the eternities. This was not some underage sex circle...she didn't live with him, she was not married to him for "time" but sealed for "eternity". Why would she continue to live with her parents if the goal was to purely to have sex with underage girls??

I am more likely than not wasting my time explaining this to you because you seem pretty hung up on sex... And I just feel it necessary to clarify what I meant by the plural marriage and that it would not sway my testimony. I never said anything about sex (except to ask YOU if that's what YOU were hung up on...and it appears it is) I suppose I can still see how it would appear, especially if you have a shallow perception on the practice and view it strictly as a physical sex fest. Maybe you should look into why you are so hung up on the multiple underage girls you believe Joseph Smith had sex with. I hope it's not something you think about regularly...that's just not healthy Alan. I'm not going to ***ume you are a sexual deviant, just like I would appreciate you not implying that I condone pedophilia.

Now....as far as the historical practice of polygamy in general...yes, I have unanswered questions, absolutely. But I do have speculations (that I truly believe are very possible) that I will not share, simply because you may take them and use them for a future story for another forum member, I don't speculate when it can be misconstrued as "doctrine". But I have some strong ideas. It would not be the first time God has commanded His children to do things that were not popular in worldly views or considered socially acceptable. That's where I say "....lean not unto thine own understanding" "...If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.." "And be not conformed to this world:" The road to discipleship is not going to be easy...it's going to be accompanied by persecution, it has always been that way, and will always be so. So, again, I cannot let the opinions of man interfere with my testimony of God.

However...You made your words clear as well...that it wouldn't matter to you if he was or wasn't a sexual
deviant...that you would flatly reject God if He isn't who you want Him to be, or if He required anything of you that you believe to be silly or a waste of your time...simply put, you would reject God if He did not fit your criteria of who you believe He should be. You have created God in YOUR image, in your little box labeled "God"
And He must fit your image of Him to be worthy of your worship. That's a bold statement to make...very bold. But yes...you have made yourself perfectly clear.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

Originally Posted by Christian

Perhaps discussing joseph smith's 'revelations' and your 'modern-day' revelations would be a good place for us to begin. I have to 'go up north' today, so won't be home until later. I'll travel about 250 miles today for business.

I may get home late afternoon at which time I may post something.

Ok...looks like I've got a super busy work week at the flower shop so I'll get back with you. I would actually like to further discuss biblical interpretation if that's ok. I'm quite aware of your take on revelation. That will be a short discussion lol. Thanks Christian

Biblical interpretation (the art and science of Hermeneutics) is just fine with me.

As for my 'take' on revelation. . .I believe that. . .

1) New revelation cannot contradict what God has already revealed to us (smith's stuff contradicts the Bible)
2) New revelation has to come true or the so-called 'prophet' is NOT from God (the Temple Lot does not belong to your church any more, though it was supposedly 'revealed' to joe smith that it always would belong to HIS church).
3) God does not lie or contradict Himself (The Biblical God said HE IS THE ONLY ONE, invisible, not a man nor a son of man. . .smith's religion teaches there are MANY GODS extant and that their god used to be a man)

Smith's religion violates all three of the BIBLICAL mandates as well as my own.

So how do you think we should study the Bible for proper understanding (interpretation)? Who do you think can help you? What is the ultimate 'decider' for you?

Do you think Biblical faith is a 'blind leap' of faith, something you do? Where do you think faith comes from? Do you think you just 'decide' to believe something?

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by Christian

Biblical interpretation (the art and science of Hermeneutics) is just fine with me.

As for my 'take' on revelation. . .I believe that. . .

1) New revelation cannot contradict what God has already revealed to us (smith's stuff contradicts the Bible)
2) New revelation has to come true or the so-called 'prophet' is NOT from God (the Temple Lot does not belong to your church any more, though it was supposedly 'revealed' to joe smith that it always would belong to HIS church).
3) God does not lie or contradict Himself (The Biblical God said HE IS THE ONLY ONE, invisible, not a man nor a son of man. . .smith's religion teaches there are MANY GODS extant and that their god used to be a man)

Smith's religion violates all three of the BIBLICAL mandates as well as my own.

So how do you think we should study the Bible for proper understanding (interpretation)? Who do you think can help you? What is the ultimate 'decider' for you?

Do you think Biblical faith is a 'blind leap' of faith, something you do? Where do you think faith comes from? Do you think you just 'decide' to believe something?

Sigh.....I almost thought we were going to get somewhere...

I'm not going to go through and try to defend each one of these statements...it will likely end up in the same place it usually does, focusing on all the same things about Joseph Smith that I've already heard.

I see biblical evidence for the things I believe...I wanted to discuss those things to see what you believe certain verses to mean, and find out where the contradiction lies. Like with the verses attached to the link I provided to you in another reply. But I just wanted to have an honest discussion...a fair back and forth exchange ...I know where YOUR beliefs lie, you know where MY beliefs lie....I really don't what to keep beating up that poor horse...it's already dead. I just wanted a no-frills, exchange free of added expletives and excessive critiques. I get it....you can't stand Joseph Smith, I accept that. I wanted to get into more of specific biblical interpretations that back up what you believe and why without it continually falling back on the same statements about Bro Smith that have already been continually voiced. There are still things in the Bible that I'm unsure on...I wanted to know what you believed about the verses that seem to contradict what you are saying to be true. Not to prove you "wrong", not to criticize, belittle, condescend...blah blah...but to determine where these differences are and why. I am not an especially learned woman, but I feel I'm pretty intelligent and can understand things quickly enough...I do want to learn all I can. I thought I may have been getting somewhere with Alan as well...but I just want to discuss and exchange information without the added time and energy of going through all this additional verbiage of what I already know you both think of ole "Joey Smith" and it seems to continually land there, then I get sidetracked (blame it on my ADD lol).

Maybe I'll come back around in the future, when I feel like I have the time and energy to get through the additional commentary and to the meat of the discussion. But I really don't know...I've honestly been taking way too much time in this forum, I've got to take a break.

I don't know if it's lack of communication, or maybe your perception about what my intentions have been....I don't know. I am well aware that I have been my own worst enemy several times (blame it on my PMS..hahahaha) and have sabotaged myself. I thought making a concerted effort to put all that drama queen stuff aside would help, but, I'm just tired...I need a break.

But to answer your last question...I read each chapter/section etc and look at the "why"... Why is this being discussed? What's the context in which it is directed...basically - What's the point of this being in the Bible? What is being taught? I research certain things I have questions understanding, and I do apply it to my ongoing belief system..and determine if it is consistent. I pray...before I read...every time..to have my mind and heart open to the Spirit...I pray with a question in mind about things going on in my life...to receive guidance and personal revelation. And i try to apply any knowledge or confirmation that I may receive to my daily life and experiences where I can...testing my faith and receiving my evidence. I know there's this whole faith vs works thing going on...I don't let all that get to me too much...my personal belief is that faith IS the work, and is in constant motion "ask, seek, knock, find, receive" it's an ongoing process. That's how I feel. Faith is not a work that will "earn" me Heaven, it's the key by which I access the grace necessary to my continued renewal in Him. Not a score card, not a checklist of salvation. For me, as a recovering sinner and drug addict...it is a necessity to my SURVIVAL. I feel like there are two simple reasons that I do the things I do (that encomp***es all else)

1-Because I know God loves me

2-And because I know He wants me to be happy.

And because of my continuing faith in Him...I trust Him completely.

I pray that you may put aside the theology of what I believe to recognize the person underneath it.

Best of love and blessings to you Christian

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

Did you just infer that I would condone pedophilia?

I try to use the past history of a nice Mormon lady on this forum and her decision to keep following the teachings of Joe Smith, even after she had to adopt a position on Smith's past that I personally saw her over and over beforehand criticize as being nothing more that anti-Mormon tripe.


She said over and over that there simply was no proof at all to the myth that Smith had other wives...

Then........all the sudden she had to change what she was saying was "the truth"




I want to just point out to all Mormons (like yourself) that when some Mormons here are saying things like "Not all Smith's marriages had to be sexual" that they are actually preparing themselves and other Mormons for the other shoe to fall...


and we all know what the other shoe that is about to fall will be about...


that is why they dont say, "Smith never married an underage child"....

That is why they never say, "He never had sex with a 14 year old girl"



They dont say that because they dont dare given what just happened to the Mormon claim of Smith's "one wife".


You are smart enough to see this...




You also know that many if not most Mormons will be able to insulate themselves from seeing the truth of what it means.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I try to use the past history of a nice Mormon lady on this forum and her decision to keep following the teachings of Joe Smith, even after she had to adopt a position on Smith's past that I personally saw her over and over beforehand criticize as being nothing more that anti-Mormon tripe.


She said over and over that there simply was no proof at all to the myth that Smith had other wives...

Then........all the sudden she had to change what she was saying was "the truth"




I want to just point out to all Mormons (like yourself) that when some Mormons here are saying things like "Not all Smith's marriages had to be sexual" that they are actually preparing themselves and other Mormons for the other shoe to fall...


and we all know what the other shoe that is about to fall will be about...


that is why they dont say, "Smith never married an underage child"....

That is why they never say, "He never had sex with a 14 year old girl"



They dont say that because they dont dare given what just happened to the Mormon claim of Smith's "one wife".


You are smart enough to see this...




You also know that many if not most Mormons will be able to insulate themselves from seeing the truth of what it means.

Omygosh....you really are obsessed with this aren't you? I'd seek some help for that. You are so funny the way you "technically" don't insult me to my face to satisfy your "rules" *** it's so funny.

I'm happy for you that you have your story to tell about a "nice Mormon lady" who stepped into it. You will cling to that one story for all it's worth, good for you

Smith never had sex with a 14 year old girl...got it? I was actually presenting the absolute facts that are available....you're the one creating the fantasy...but no...he did not have sex with a 14 year old girl.

And does it matter to you? If he never even had the whole polygamy thing going on....you still would reject God because He doesn't fit in your box and may require some effort on your part....but I can understand that you're making this huge deal about it if you're looking to insulate yourself from the fact that you will only worship your little boxed god. So go ahead and wait for the other shoe to drop, in the meantime I hope for your sake, that you're REALLY sure your god is the right one....because if it's not.....eeeesh... It would suck to be you lol

So my experience with "other Christians" on this board (I won't mention any names, but his initials are alanmolstad hahaha) only engage Mormons in civil conversation if they believe they have a chance at getting them to deny their faith...if they see they really are serious about what they believe, they pull out the "ugly truth" about the founder.

(If Christian is reading this, I do not mean you...you have been nothing but sincere and consistent about your beliefs and testimony...I actually respect that)

But honestly...I'm simply not going to sit here and be accused of turning a blind eye to pedophilia...it has happened in my family...and I take great offense in being labeled as such that I would condone it. I know you were "technically" talking about "other Mormons" but I'm not going to play these games with you. I was actually trying to be sincere and civil, and discuss biblical doctrine on both sides...I really was..but I don't play games, alrighty then?

I won't see you around

PS - for anyone cruising through here...no...Alan did not s/care me off with "ugly facts" , because he has none lol. I just truly have better things to do then play games

[Christian]

Mickey posted:

Sigh.....I almost thought we were going to get somewhere...

I'm not going to go through and try to defend each one of these statements...it will likely end up in the same place it usually does, focusing on all the same things about Joseph Smith that I've already heard.

I see biblical evidence for the things I believe...I wanted to discuss those things to see what you believe certain verses to mean, and find out where the contradiction lies. Like with the verses attached to the link I provided to you in another reply.

The problems you have are that
1) I don't go 'link-hopping' to 'prove' someone else's point. If they are unable to defend their own beliefs, I am not interested.

2) I do NOT see REAL evidence for such 'stuff' that you belief such as:
a) Christ's church ever losing any of Christ's Gospel, the authority to act and speak for Jesus, or any of the other 'stuff' that joe smith's entire religion falls from if it is not true.

b) Any evidence at all of joe smith's 'priesthood authority system' being present in Christ's church in the Bible

c) Any evidence in SCRIPTURE that joe smith's description of the GOD of the Bible is accurate or true. No physical body, no 'former humanhood exalted to godhood,' NONE of that stuff existed in Jesus Church

UNTIL we can establish any NEED for joe smith's supposed revelation, to discuss other things will always lead back to joe smith and his supposed revelation. If we cannot confirm that his revelation is true, then we are 'talking past' each other rather than 'talking TO' each other.

But I just wanted to have an honest discussion...a fair back and forth exchange ...

I do too.

I know where YOUR beliefs lie, you know where MY beliefs lie....I really don't what to keep beating up that poor horse...it's already dead.

You SAY you know what I believe, then you demonstrate that you don't.

If you don't want to discuss the important things of your religion with me such as whether or not it needed to exist at all, then what is there to discuss?

Wife just reminded me, time to go to breakfast with her at McDonalds. I'll try to address this later.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by Christian

Mickey posted:

Sigh.....I almost thought we were going to get somewhere...

I'm not going to go through and try to defend each one of these statements...it will likely end up in the same place it usually does, focusing on all the same things about Joseph Smith that I've already heard.

I see biblical evidence for the things I believe...I wanted to discuss those things to see what you believe certain verses to mean, and find out where the contradiction lies. Like with the verses attached to the link I provided to you in another reply.

The problems you have are that
1) I don't go 'link-hopping' to 'prove' someone else's point. If they are unable to defend their own beliefs, I am not interested.

2) I do NOT see REAL evidence for such 'stuff' that you belief such as:
a) Christ's church ever losing any of Christ's Gospel, the authority to act and speak for Jesus, or any of the other 'stuff' that joe smith's entire religion falls from if it is not true.

b) Any evidence at all of joe smith's 'priesthood authority system' being present in Christ's church in the Bible

c) Any evidence in SCRIPTURE that joe smith's description of the GOD of the Bible is accurate or true. No physical body, no 'former humanhood exalted to godhood,' NONE of that stuff existed in Jesus Church

UNTIL we can establish any NEED for joe smith's supposed revelation, to discuss other things will always lead back to joe smith and his supposed revelation. If we cannot confirm that his revelation is true, then we are 'talking past' each other rather than 'talking TO' each other.

But I just wanted to have an honest discussion...a fair back and forth exchange ...

I do too.

I know where YOUR beliefs lie, you know where MY beliefs lie....I really don't what to keep beating up that poor horse...it's already dead.

You SAY you know what I believe, then you demonstrate that you don't.

If you don't want to discuss the important things of your religion with me such as whether or not it needed to exist at all, then what is there to discuss?

Wife just reminded me, time to go to breakfast with her at McDonalds. I'll try to address this later.

I meant that I know what you believe about MY faith...I think you've been really vocal about that. And the "link" I mentioned was just a link to other threads in this forum that I responded on...it was easier to copy and paste the link to the response I had already given then to have to re-write the entire response. I wasn't referring to any outside links...I know how you feel about those.

I don't want to fight anymore. I wasn't accusing you of anything, I just know how you feel about the restoration, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon. I do, it's ok though...it really is. I don't want up fight anymore.

I wanted to discuss the bible because that's the one place that we both have the same dog in the fight...I would discuss what I believe or been taught verses to show, you could explain the same. Plus I believe discussing all those requirements to be completely based on interpretation of the Bible, because that's what you base all of your knowledge on.

No offense...please...no offense...but you telling me all the things wrong with my faith and me sitting here listening to it...I wouldn't personally consider that a discussion. So, if that was what you had in mind, then I'm not interested, but thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

Sincerely the best to you..,I really really mean that

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I want to just point out to all Mormons (like yourself) that when some Mormons here are saying things like "Not all Smith's marriages had to be sexual" that they are actually preparing themselves and other Mormons for the other shoe to fall...


and we all know what the other shoe that is about to fall will be about...


that is why they dont say, "Smith never married an underage child"....

That is why they never say, "He never had sex with a 14 year old girl"

To answer a question from a private message:
No, I have no idea if the nice Mormon lady gave up her membership in the Mormon church over this issue or not?

But I did do a bit of searching and yes I can support all I have said here on this or any other topic.

To that end, this is a story I found on the web that deals with the 'changing truth" that the Mormon church pulled on their followers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6054272.html


Now as you can see from the text of the story about the 14 year old wife that Smith took, the link's information of the Mormon church's founder reads very closely to what I have been saying about him.

As it reads the Mormon's current leadership does seem to be getting their members ready for the next shoe to fall.


Let me quote :
"He and his first plural wife separated, but he renewed the practice a decade later in Illinois. That's where he married the teenager."

The link goes on to say;
"But, research has indicated that Smith's marriage to the young girl might not have involved sex."


So as of right now, the position of the Mormon church is that Smith "might not" be a pedophile.

[alanmolstad]

One interesting note on this topic:


I found a link to The Salt Lake Tribune, that has a very interesting point of view as written by a Mormon.

it seems to be in-line with what I have been saying that the Mormons seem to be getting things ready to have it come out that Smith did have sex with a underage child, and that this was a sin, and yet it should not matter to Mormons .



here is the link-
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/176457...women-consider





I think the Salt Lake Tribune is helping the church set the groundwork to get the members of the church comfortable with the idea that they should be able to overlook the actions of a pedophile as long as the story of finding the Golden Plates is not cast in doubt.




Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about - "The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry him

[theway]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

One interesting note on this topic:


I found a link to The Salt Lake Tribune, that has a very interesting point of view as written by a Mormon.

it seems to be in-line with what I have been saying that the Mormons seem to be getting things ready to have it come out that Smith did have sex with a underage child, and that this was a sin, and yet it should not matter to Mormons .



here is the link-
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/176457...women-consider





I think the Salt Lake Tribune is helping the church set the groundwork to get the members of the church comfortable with the idea that they should be able to overlook the actions of a pedophile as long as the story of finding the Golden Plates is not cast in doubt.




Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about - "The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry him

So let me see if I got this straight....

Based on the meaning of the word, "Pedophile" is a false accusation to make....... But you continue to use it.

Even though with all the evidence there ever has been on the subject, the most that can be said is that Joseph "MIGHT HAVE" had sex with his bride.........
You are going to continue to make statements that "HE DID" have sex with her, as though it were a fact.

Instead of remaing silent when there is no evidence.....
You are going ***ert "YOUR OPINIONS" as fact, and then based on your opinion and claimed mind reading abilities, accuse someone else of rape.

Instead of letting the article speak for itself.....
You are going to claim to be able to read the mind of the Author in order to reconstruct and twist someone else's comments into solicitous gossip, in which was never intended by the Author.

Nice.... However I would be very careful.... For God said, the exact same type of judgement you judge others by, will be the exact same type of judgement that you will be judged by. Your faith is not in Christ... Your faith is in the opinions, gossip, misquoted and misapplied evidence, and lies of men. May God have mercy on you; at least more than you have for others.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

One interesting note on this topic:


I found a link to The Salt Lake Tribune, that has a very interesting point of view as written by a Mormon.

it seems to be in-line with what I have been saying that the Mormons seem to be getting things ready to have it come out that Smith did have sex with a underage child, and that this was a sin, and yet it should not matter to Mormons .



here is the link-
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/176457...women-consider





I think the Salt Lake Tribune is helping the church set the groundwork to get the members of the church comfortable with the idea that they should be able to overlook the actions of a pedophile as long as the story of finding the Golden Plates is not cast in doubt.




Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about - "The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry him

Lol....yeah, this Tribune article is hard hitting news....it's an opinion article by a member of the church who is involved in an organization that's trying to make God change current doctrine of women not holding the priesthood because of what THEY want, (sounds familiar...I can see why you would like this article lol) this women does NOT represent the church and her beliefs aren't even in line with church teachings, especially since she basically called God a rapist. Plus she makes errors and ***umptions in her "well meaning" piece. First...there were no "14 year olds" there was one (I've addressed that below) secondly, where was anybody commanded to HAVE SEX against their will? There IS NO PROOF OF SEX against anyone's will. Those getting hung up on SEX as the purpose of polygamy in the church, has SEX on the brain. Also, she cannot ***ert that Joseph Smith was LYING about a commandment he received and still consider herself LDS. It's one thing for a prophet to err, misinterpret or misunderstand a revelation...***ert their own opinion into doctrine..say something stupid ...etc... It's quite another thing to flat out lie about an angel visiting you with a commandment. There's no misinterpreting that...either he did or he didn't. If she believes he lied about that, I don't understand why she's still a member. Joseph Smith not being completely forthcoming to his wife, or the public due to very human shame and confusion...that is erring as a man...he's still human, and would have to repent and find forgiveness for that, if it wasn't done under Gods command. Also, she contends that the essay itself will lead to sexual abuse within the church. That's absurd because the practice is nullified...it is against policy, doctrine and Gods command. And was NEVER intended as a way to impose sexual dominion over women. If somebody is going to use their priesthood power to ***ert themselves sexually on anybody (which applies to ALL men with ONE wife)...they will answer for it. (I'd like to see the day my husband tries to pull that **** with me lol...Lorena Bobbitt come to mind? ) And THAT is taught within the church and by the prophets. But in the end, it's an OPINION piece. She is ***erting her opinion on how things should be handled. Just like the organization she is a member of (Ordain Women) is demanding the church make women priesthood holders, which is essentially demanding it of God. Do you think the church is in charge of the Salt Lake Tribune?? Do you think the Tribune and the church are working together to "prepare" members for revelation really? Are you serious? Its a NEWSPAPER. These are not church publications. But the fact that you think the author of this article is a credible source simply because she says she's a member, oh man "A Mormon said it!!! It must be true!!" Which is even MORE hilarious because of how dishonest you believe Mormons to be. As we they say down here in the south "Bless your heart"

But you probably should read something that's neither from whitewashed apologists or "progressive" Mormon feminists. How about this link to an article by the author of "In Sacred Lonliness" Todd Compton. A book that meticulously reviews the actual evidence while focusing on the hardships of the women involved (and I can imagine it WAS hard) While he is a member of the church, his presentation of the facts focus on all the actual evidence (and any educated guesses he makes, are actually educated and have evidence as well) Plus he gives the methods with which he reached his conclusions and why. This is NOT based on opinion. It is unapologetic and does not whitewash. It's simply the facts.

http://toddmcompton.com/revhmk5.html

In response to others claiming he said there probably was sex involved in the Helen Kimball marriage

"My position, actually, is that there is no evidence, pro or con, for sexual relations. You cannot prove that there were sexual relations; you cannot prove that there were no sexual relations. Notice that I do not simply say "ambiguous"; I say "entirely ambiguous.""

So NO evidence...aha you say?? Read further

"But, the reader may ask, what is my best guess? I remember talking with my publisher Gary Bergera on the phone once during the editorial process and I restated the cautious "no evidence either way" position. But Gary pressed: "But what do you think? What is your best guess?" And I answered that my best guess was that there were no sexual relations, based on parallels from some marriages to underage women in Utah polygamy."

What are these parallels to the Utah polygamy? That when younger girls were married, it was in name only until they were old enough to have actual relations.

He goes on to say

"My view, based on Helen's short 1881 reminiscence, is that she married Joseph thinking the marriage would be "for eternity alone," linking the houses of Heber and Joseph."

In the end....your pedophiliac fantasy holds no water. But I do find it very disturbing that you are looking forward to and HOPING to hear these sordid details to back your claims. I'm sorry, but that's kinda sick.

Do I like the idea of polygamy? No. Do I understand it? No...But I also don't like the idea of innocent children being killed for the wickedness of their fathers...I don't like a righteous man being plagued by great hardship because of a wager...I certainly don't like the idea of a man being killed because he had done NO wrong and was completely without sin...yes all of those things sound absolutely unfair and horrible...and atheists eat that stuff up and love pointing those things out to Christians...how do you explain all that away to them? Did everybody believe Moses was a prophet? Did everyone accept the things Noah said? How did that turn out for them?

If you're looking for me to get upset and make wild speculations or get flustered trying to defend my faith, that's not going to happen lol. There is an extensive history throughout the ages of mankind of God requiring things that do not make sense to man...plenty of things that were embarr***ing and difficult to defend. But I have complete faith in a God who blesses those who are obedient, and I can't worry about whether or not you like it. You think being a true disciple is supposed to be easy, and that may be your complete downfall. It has never been easy...why would that change?

But in the end...again...it makes no difference to you...at all...no matter what he did or didn't do you reject everything anyway.

In your own words .. GOD HIMSELF could appear to you and confirm the His exact nature and all the doctrine that accompany it, and you would refuse Him for not being who you want Him to be. So I really don't understand why you care about Joseph Smith's credibility, he could literally be the most credible person in the history of man, approved by God Himself...and you would still reject what he had to say. Which really makes me wonder why...why you keep obsessing on this pedophilia thing.....I just.....ick....really...gross.

Carry on with your...whatever it is you're doing...maybe another "nice Mormon lady" will come along and fall for it. Someone who leaves the church simply because of what you have to say...had no testimony...sorry.
That's why it's important to truly study and seek knowledge always and build your OWN faith. I really am done here, I just thought maybe you needed some real reading material if you were going to continue with your "facts"

[alanmolstad]

I read the first section..

The guy's basic conclusion is that Smith might not be a pedophile....

that is in agreement with other pro-Mormon sources...





its like they are all hedging their bets, not wanting to go too far with their defense of Smith, as they know full well there are other shoes to drop yet...


When you read things its like the person writing about Smith can just "feel" the tide turning against Smith.


Now if there is something different in the rest of the text?..let me know.

But so far all i get from the link is that all the best the Mormon church can do to defend the sick sexual history of Smith marring underage children is to say that he might not be guilty of being a pedophile.....



I glanced at the rest of your link and if there is a point in it you think is something that is different than what i have said?,,,,just point it out and I will have a look...


But its a long thing to read, and its not that easy on a computer screen to read in the first place -

And, Im not going to spend time reading things that in the end simply say the very same stuff I have said from the beginning that is> "Mormons teach now about Smith that he "might not"be a Pedophile

[MickeyS]

Oh boy, here we go...

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I read the first section..

The guy's basic conclusion is that Smith might not be a pedophile....

Where is any of that stated in any of the articles presented?? Absolutely nothing has been said anywhere about Joseph being a pedophile... AT ALL.

that is in agreement with other pro-Mormon sources...

It's a history of the evidence involved. And since FARMS actually accused Compton of being atheist because of his unbiased presentation of the facts...I wouldn't call it a typical "pro-Mormon" source

its like they are all hedging their bets, not wanting to go too far with their defense of Smith, as they know full well there are other shoes to drop yet...


When you read things its like the person writing about Smith can just "feel" the tide turning against Smith.

***, PLEASE tell me how you came to this astute conclusion...is the Illuminati involved?

Now if there is something different in the rest of the text?..let me know.

You can lead a horse to water....blah blah

But so far all i get from the link is that all the best the Mormon church can do to defend the sick sexual history of Smith marring underage children is to say that he might not be guilty of being a pedophile.....

The only sick sexual history is in your mind Alan. The church says he "might not" have CONSUMMATED his MARRIAGE (no pedophilia) because they cannot show direct witness testimony to cooberate the comings and goings of these two individuals during the year they were married. since everybody's been hollering for honesty and complete transparency...they could not state FOR A FACT that they did not consummate the marriage. if they were to say he "did not", all the freaks would come out of the woodwork demanding proof. If they took that position Alan...would that be your reaction? What would you say to that?

But this is what I see....you criticized a "nice Mormon lady" for stating ***umption as fact.
Now you criticize the church for NOT stating ***umption as fact.

I glanced at the rest of your link and if there is a point in it you think is something that is different than what i have said?,,,,just point it out and I will have a look...

Again...horse...water...pointless since you're not reading anything anyway

But its a long thing to read, and its not that easy on a computer screen to read in the first place -

And, Im not going to spend time reading things that in the end simply say the very same stuff I have said from the beginning that is> "Mormons teach now about Smith that he "might not"be a Pedophile

Well....I'm sorry....but you're obviously not spending the time reading ANY of it...Nobody anywhere....at all....ever....said Joseph Smith might have or not have been a pedophile. Yet you continue to use that word. As Inigo Montoya once said "I don't think it means what you think it means."

Let's pretend (since you're already doing so in your twisted mind) that Joseph Smith consummated his MARRIAGE to Helen Kimball.

Pedophilia - a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre****scent children, generally age 11 years or younger.As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for pre****scence to age 13.

Age of consent in 19th century America- In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.

Please provide YOUR evidence that Smith "might have" been a pedophile....there is none.

But let's review...
There is...no...other...shoe
There is...no..more history

It's all out there...

You'll be literally waiting forever to hear all the sick details of Joseph Smith's secret pedophiliac sex ring...but fortunately for you, if you really need to satisfy your desires for that ...kind of entertainment....I'm sure there are sources out there if you looked...

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about -

"The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry him

Now this is where we truly get to "Peak under the hood" and learn a little about how the Mormon Founder Joe Smith used to convince reluctant younger girls into his bed?

Understand that one of the hallmarks of a known rapist is their use of violence or the threat of violence to get power over young girls that would otherwise never consent.

Smith's idea was to use the threat of an angel nearby holding a sword, that seems to be his Modus Operandi.



More information:
""Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira's room and bed, and also asked me for my youngest sister Esther . "
(Joseph Smith's personal secretary and church patriarch, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life's Review - http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm )


"19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)

And another thing:
I have often wondered how Smith was able to talk loving Mormon fathers into handing over their own daughters into Smith's bed?
It was question #6 at the bottom of the link that showed me just how far Smith went in convincing Fathers to do this...
(see http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm Question #6)

[Christian]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

I meant that I know what you believe about MY faith...I think you've been really vocal about that. And the "link" I mentioned was just a link to other threads in this forum that I responded on...it was easier to copy and paste the link to the response I had already given then to have to re-write the entire response. I wasn't referring to any outside links...I know how you feel about those.

I don't want to fight anymore. I wasn't accusing you of anything, I just know how you feel about the restoration, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon. I do, it's ok though...it really is. I don't want up fight anymore.

I wanted to discuss the bible because that's the one place that we both have the same dog in the fight...I would discuss what I believe or been taught verses to show, you could explain the same. Plus I believe discussing all those requirements to be completely based on interpretation of the Bible, because that's what you base all of your knowledge on.

No offense...please...no offense...but you telling me all the things wrong with my faith and me sitting here listening to it...I wouldn't personally consider that a discussion. So, if that was what you had in mind, then I'm not interested, but thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

Sincerely the best to you..,I really really mean that

I believe you. I believe you are sincere and that you hold your beliefs tightly, just as I do mine. I am happy to discuss the Bible with you, but be aware that what I believe (what the Bible actually says) often directly opposes what joe smith taught, so it will frequently be joe's theories versus the Bible.

So far, no 'restoration' has happened between joe smith and Biblical Christianity. You cannot find his 'mormon-specific' junk in the New Testament Church in the Bible anywhere. No 'prophet' leading Christ's church, no 'modern-day revelation' that hasn't had a new revelation added to its d&c for over a hundred years, no aaronic priesthood in the New Testament Church anywhere, no Melchizedek priests in the New Testament church besides Jesus Christ Himself

No 'restored gospel,' no lost scriptures, no loss of the authority for every Christian everywhere to speak for and act for God. No need for any of that 'new religion' at all.

For starters, our discussion should start with the Nature of God. Was he ever a man who became 'exalted?' Do other REAL gods exist, does the REAL God even know of any? If He doesn't, how can Jesus be a 'separate god?' Is God the Father a physical being?

Then there is joe's theory of pre-existance. Where in the Bible does that exist at all? Why should I, a Biblical Christian believe any of that? More importantly what did GOD say about it?

I think I have given you enough 'fresh meat' to chew on for a while. To discuss your beliefs and my own in the light of the Bible makes it impossible to keep joe smith's religion out of it since his religion is what you believe.

Suggestions?

[alanmolstad]

The next morning Joseph visited the Kimball home. "[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26...MarKimball.htm

[alanmolstad]

Smith used the threat of violence to coerce women into his bed.


""19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)


Smith used coercion including the threat that he had personally seen an angel with a sword who was ready to kill....

His approach is that of a rapist with this threat of an enforcer of his bedroom conquests being ready to use a blade.



Now as bad as that is, his deviousness goes on:

Smith also approached married women when he knew their husbands were out of town.

Sometimes Smith would send the husbands out of town of missions, and then approach the wife when he felt she was most vulnerable.


and as we saw in the SLT link, there also were girls that Smith went after that simply were far too young to be making this type of informed consent.



Smith is guilty of:

Preying on women that were alone,
Preying on the too trusting,
Preying on the frightened....
and, Preying on children...

These are the hallmarks of a sexual deviant.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Yes, I know the Protestant god doesn't exist. Protestants believe he does, though.

And mormon fundamentalists? What do YOU think?

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Then why do Protestants insist that they're different?

Why do the 150+ mormon sub-religions insist they are different?

What makes you think CHRISTIAN groups 'think that they are different,' and HOW do you think they think that?

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Christian

And mormon fundamentalists?

No idea. You'll have to ask them.

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Christian

Why do the 150+ mormon sub-religions insist they are different?

As far as I know, they don't.

What makes you think CHRISTIAN groups 'think that they are different,'

We don't, of course. It's the Protestant groups that do.

[Christian]

erunder posted:

Originally Posted by Christian [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]
Why do the 150+ mormon sub-religions insist they are different?

As far as I know, they don't.

You don't think they left smith's religion for some specific reason that makes each of them 'different?'

Or

You don't think they ever existed? Which is it that you think?

What makes you think CHRISTIAN groups 'think that they are different,'

We don't, of course. It's the Protestant groups that do.

If you don't think they are different than you, why are you not part of them?

[Christian]

Originally Posted by theway

Mormons believe in a restoration. Orthodox Christianity believes in unbroken authority.

As a Protestant, you don't even have a horse in this race.
That what's so funny... In order for Faith Alone and other Protestant beliefs to be true... The Church Christ set up would have had to of failed. You're arguing against yourself.

As a CHRISTIAN my horse IS the race. Why would Christ's church need to fail for it to continue for about 2,000 years. Your claims make no sense at all.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by theway

Mormons believe in a restoration. Orthodox Christianity believes in unbroken authority.

As a Protestant, you don't even have a horse in this race.

As a Protestant--their horse race began here:

The Protestant Reformation: Revolution, Reaction, Reform


http://reformationrestoration.blogsp...evolution.html


In the 16th Century, the church was forever changed. The Catholic Church had drifted far away from the truth and was teaching very heretical doctrine, contrary to the Bible, the inerrant Word of God. The sacraments were not being properly administered, and people were actually buying their way into heaven. The church had even been corrupted from its core, the clergy. Pope Leo X was leading this indoctrination in the church and was ready to excommunicate anyone who got in his way. The future of the Catholic Church was in no way looking good. However, despite all the false doctrine and corruption, there was a man named Martin Luther. Martin Luther was a law student, who after a close encounter with death and God, decided to become a priest. Luther bought into all the lies that were being fed to him for a while, but soon began to question some of the things taught by the church. He especially questioned the selling of indulgences. He wrote a document called the “95 Theses” and nailed it to the church door. His 95 Theses stated all the problems with the Catholic Doctrine, especially the selling of indulgences. He nailed it to the church door because that was a way of ensuring that everyone would see it. In doing this, Martin Luther started a revolution, received a reaction from the church clergy, and ultimately reformed the church, creating the greatest historical landmark of the Protestant Church.

Martin Luther reformed the church. He did this by originally trying to fix the church, but when the church rejected his opinion, he began reforming the church to what he believed was the biblical view. He systematically went through changing and reforming the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Luther was an advocate of Augustinianism and his view of salvation. Luther was one of the earliest fathers of reformed theology. People like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards would come after him and continue to contribute to the teachings of reformed theology, and even today, we have modern day reformers. Martin Luther taught the “Five Solas”. The Five Solas are: Sola scriptura (by scripture alone), Sola fide (by faith alone), Sola gratia (by grace alone), Solus Christus (by Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone). These five solas summarized most of the basic truths advocated by Luther and the later reformers. The reformation of the protestant church brought us a clear teaching of some of the hardest doctrines and concepts uncovered in the scriptures. Another thing Luther did, was translate the Bible into German. This made it possible for everyone to read the Bible and not be forced to believe all that the church taught them, they could actually read scripture and interpret it themselves. This was one of the reasons so many people followed Luther. Originally, they believed whatever the Catholic clergy told them, but now they could read the Bible themselves and it became very clear that a lot of what they had been taught was false. So clearly the reformation really helped the common man of the church. Also, Luther reformed the teachings of the Catholic Church restoring the biblical standard of theology.

Therefore, Martin Luther started a revolution, received a reaction from the church clergy, and ultimately reformed the church, creating the greatest historical landmark of the Protestant Church. This reformation was absolutely necessary and helpful to the church. The Catholic Church had gotten to a point where they were extremely heretical and actually teaching paganism in some of areas of Christian theology, and it desperately needed to be stopped. Martin Luther, along with many others, reformed and restored the church to the biblical standard.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

Originally Posted by Christian

The unbroken authority of ALL CHRISTIANS to speak for and act for God. NOT for manmade 'authority'.

I'm curious...not trying to fight...as to what you believe about why Christ ordained men with priesthood authority if that wasn't supposed to be something we were supposed to do ever again? What was the purpose for that?

And also...what was the purpose of Christ being baptized if we weren't supposed to do that either? He didn't need to be baptized, He had no sin, the only reason I could see that He did that was a-because His Father commanded Him and b-to set an example for us to follow. So I really would like to know what you think about that, and where in the Bible it says what you believe.

Thanks~

Christ didn't 'ordain with priesthood authority.' That is joe smith's imaginary 'thing' Jesus ordained DISCIPLES and APOSTLES (those He SENT). EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE has the authority of Christ's Royal Priesthood:

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, 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.


9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

We CHRISTIANS (not you mormons) have been proclaiming the praises of Jesus Christ for about 2,000 years now.

Mormonism hadn't been invented until just the last couple of centuries.