The "many" former followers who turned against Christ?

[Sparko]

"Pretty much all"? Evidence please.

amazing. when we ask for evidence that many former friends of Jesus turned against him, we get nothing but airballs and speculation from you and other mormons, yet you expect us to provide YOU with evidence when we make a similar claim.

you first.

[Cow Poke]

"it follows in my thinking that Jesus was also accused and turned upon by many of his one-time friends as well."

I personally believe this is most like was the case even though it is hard to prove.

Give me even a HINT of substantiation, besides "I want to think this because in my own little twisted way of thinking it makes Joseph Smith more honorable". The Bible tells us about Jesus cursing the fig tree, running the moneychangers out of the temple, Judas betraying Him, Peter denying Him, and disciples abandoning Him.... but NOTHING about his own "friends" turning against Him. He managed to keep mission focused.

This was in defense of the fact that many of Smith's "friends" DID turn against him, and very violently. Though you'd never get that from the propaganda piece "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" -- in which Smith appears "cleaner" than Jesus as far as any character flaws.

The problem is we don't know much about the day to day life of Jesus.

Which does not justify totally making things up.

We can read about the entire ministry of Jesus of 3 years in a day or two.

Are you suggesting God had something to hide? And Jesus wasn't mayor, hotel operator, bar owner, Grand Pouba of the local Masonic Temple, Lt. General of his own army, "husband" of many wives, owner and founder of a failed bank...... Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, and to minister to the sick and the sinful.

We know a lot more about Joseph Smith than Jesus simply because we have well over a hundred times more information on his life to draw on. We can track Joseph Smith movements in many placed on specific days. That really can't be done with with the ministry of Jesus. Plus what we know about Jesus is written by his followers and not his critics. I am sure if we had an equivalent amount of info from his critics as we do from Joseph Smith critics that it would be easier to prove.

We DO know that Jesus' prosecutor, after examining Him, declared him "without fault". We know a NUMBER of reasons Smith's friends turned against him .... can you suggest ANY comparable reason Jesus' friends would have to turn against him in a similar manner?

[Cow Poke]

"Pretty much all"? Evidence please.

You claimed that MANY of Jesus' former friends turned against Him. Let's deal with that first, please.

[Cow Poke]

I think we LDS draw this inference more easily due to a principle that we believe in which states:
"And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things."

If this principle is taught in the Bible, then it isn't given much attention by people.

What the sam thunder does this have to do with your accusation that many of Jesus' friends turned against Him with NO evidence whatsoever, when you're appealing for "reason" and "benefit of the doubt" concerning Smith in the thread from which the OP came?

[OtherCheek]

What the sam thunder does this have to do with your accusation that many of Jesus' friends turned against Him with NO evidence whatsoever, when you're appealing for "reason" and "benefit of the doubt" concerning Smith in the thread from which the OP came?

Who do YOU assume were the ones clamoring the loudest for Jesus to be crucified?

[OtherCheek]

You claimed that MANY of Jesus' former friends turned against Him. Let's deal with that first, please.

Where did I claim that? Quote please.

[Cow Poke]

Where did I claim that? Quote please.

See the OP, please.

[OtherCheek]

See the OP, please.

Oh. You take a phrase like "it follows in my thinking that" to be equivalent to a phrase like "the text therefore says that"?

Interesting. You apparently have never thought to apply a principle of life to situations other than the one situation that originally presented the principle.

[Sparko]

Oh. You take a phrase like "it follows in my thinking that" to be equivalent to a phrase like "the text therefore says that"?

Interesting. You apparently have never thought to apply a principle of life to situations other than the one situation that originally presented the principle.

and yet you demanded evidence when LPOT said something similar.

so... You first. where is your evidence? Surely you don't just "think" such a thing with no evidence, do you? That would be just, ...well... stupid.

[Cow Poke]

Oh. You take a phrase like "it follows in my thinking that" to be equivalent to a phrase like "the text therefore says that"?

Ah, now playing the "oh, it's YOUR fault for misunderstanding....." Aren't you the one who freaks out when we say "In effect"?

No, OC, I take it as your sorry reasoning to ASSUME the worst about the circumstances surrounding Christ with ZERO EVIDENCE while, at the same time, asking us to give Smith the benefit of the doubt. It appears to be EXACTLY as I thought -- your thinking is stinking.

Interesting. You apparently have never thought to apply a principle of life to situations other than the one situation that originally presented the principle.

Ummmmmm.... if you mean that I don't go through convoluted mental gymnastics to try to drag Jesus down to Smith's level, you may be right. Otherwise... not so much.

[OtherCheek]

Ah, now playing the "oh, it's YOUR fault for misunderstanding....." Aren't you the one who freaks out when we say "In effect"?

No, OC, I take it as your sorry reasoning to ASSUME the worst about the circumstances surrounding Christ with ZERO EVIDENCE while, at the same time, asking us to give Smith the benefit of the doubt. It appears to be EXACTLY as I thought -- your thinking is stinking.

It's a logical deduction (for me at least), that because Christ has enemies today, and many of the worst are former Christians, that he also had them then. Now, go ahead and insult me, but I don't care. I take your insults as a real badge of honor.

[Cow Poke]

It's a logical deduction (for me at least), that because Christ has enemies today, and many of the worst are former Christians, that he also had them then.

No, OC -- you're doing that kabuki dance thing again... you claimed that Jesus' FRIENDS turned against Him, and you said MANY. Here is your quote... (bolding mine)

And Christ had his accusers. And if Job's friends falsely accused Job, and Jesus descended below all things, it follows in my thinking that Jesus was also accused and turned upon by many of his one-time friends as well.

Your Mormon worldview, with ZERO PROOF, ASSUMES that Jesus had MANY one-time friends turn against Him. Aside from Judas (who we really don't see as a "friend", and Peter, whom Jesus personally restored) you got nothing!

Yet, when it comes to Smith, you say.... (bolding mine)

Now, as to the question itself: Yes, there is room for criticism for Joseph Smith as there is with any man. He is not infallible. And he may have spoken from incomplete knowledge at times. However, I am far from qualified to cast a stone at him.

Not qualified to cast a stone at Smith .... but you're totally willing to jump to conclusion with NO BASIS IN TRUTH about Jesus.

Now, go ahead and insult me, but I don't care.

Is it an "insult" to quote your own words to you, OC, and demonstrate what a cockeyed worldview you have regarding Smith and Christ?

I take your insults as a real badge of honor.

Yeah, that persecution thing again... "CP is picking on me, by holding me to my own WORDS! That's SO not fair!"

[Sparko]

so, in effect, OC is qualified to cast stones at Jesus, but not at Smith.

[One Bad Pig]

Who do YOU assume were the ones clamoring the loudest for Jesus to be crucified?

Ya think the ones plotting to have Jesus killed might have had something to do with that?

[Cow Poke]

so, in effect, OC is qualified to cast stones at Jesus, but not at Smith.

That's what I was expecting from the git-go.