Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mormon Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.
      Okay. I suppose I did not view his threads back in the day.
      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.
        No there isn't. There is debate between Christians and those who THINK they are Christians, but not between Christians.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #19
          Hey, 7up is back! I so don't have time to read and post right now, but just wanted to say hi.

          --India

          Comment


          • #20
            From a paper given on May 3 at the 1980 Mormon Association Meetings in Canandaigua, New York

            Source: The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine - Thomas G Alexander


            1. The Construction of Mormon Doctrine 1830 -1835
            Historians have long recognized the importance of the Nauvoo experience in the formulation of distinctive Latter-day Saint doctrines. What is not so apparent is that before about 1835 the LDS doctrines on God and man were quite close to those of contemporary Protestant denominations.

            © Copyright Original Source



            So, things started out pretty "contemporary" with other religions, even though Mormonism was to set all other religions aside, and Smith was to establish the "TRUE Religion". (bolding in the articles is mine, of course)

            Source: Same Article

            Church publications from this period are important sources of doctrine and doctrinal commentary, given the lack of diaries. After the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the Church supported The Evening and the Morning Star in Independence (June 1832 - July 1833) and Kirtland (December 1833 - September 1834). In October 1834, the Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, October 1834 - September 1837) replaced the Star. Both monthlies published expositions on doctrine, letters from Church members, revelations, minutes of conferences, and other items of interest. William W. Phelps published a collection of Joseph Smith's revelations in the 1833 Book of Commandments, but destruction of the press and most copies left the Star and Messenger virtually the only sources of these revelations until 1835. In that year, the Doctrine and Covenants, which included the Lectures on Faith and presented both revelation and doctrinal exposition, was published.'

            The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources were not greatly different from those of some of the religious denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute perseverence of the elect. It will further demonstrate that the doctrine of God preached and believed before 1835 was essentially trinitarian, with God the Father seen as an absolute personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ as a personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Ghost as an impersonal spiritual member of the Godhead.

            © Copyright Original Source



            We can start there.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #21
              Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God. Who was in charge of these publications at that time?

              Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage. In the 1838 version, of course, there's the differentiation.

              Source: same article

              The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God." Abinidi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:1-4)

              © Copyright Original Source



              So WHY would God have Smith denounce ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, then borrow their Trinity, only to poo-poo it later? Again, God is not the author of confusion.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God. Who was in charge of these publications at that time?

                Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage. In the 1838 version, of course, there's the differentiation.

                Source: same article

                The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God." Abinidi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:1-4)

                © Copyright Original Source



                So WHY would God have Smith denounce ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, then borrow their Trinity, only to poo-poo it later? Again, God is not the author of confusion.
                The God of Mormonism is.
                I am Punkinhead.

                "I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"

                ~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ke7ejx View Post
                  The God of Mormonism is.
                  Yes, because the god of Mormonism had a perfect opportunity, creating a BRAND NEW religion, to get things right from the start. Instead, the god of Mormonism apparently chose a man who couldn't seem to keep his own story straight about a number of very critical events and issues pertaining to the foundation of this "new religion".
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Godhead in early Mormonism

                    7UP: Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    And AGAIN I answer, no --- I'm specifically referring to what I THINK should be a very important and fundamental doctrine -- Who JESUS is.
                    It is important. However, will you admit that before the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Godhead was not fully revealed to most people in Old Testament times? Even now looking back, most of the time in the Hebrew scriptures it appears that Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament, yet other times it appears that he is the "angel of the Lord". He is speaking on the Father's behalf as a perfect representative, which makes things difficult to discern in terms of who is speaking or acting. It did become a little more clear with the New Testament, but still there was a lot of disputes on the nature of the Godhead which required council's, votes, creeds, etc. Disputes still continue to this very day.

                    7UP: Tell me who you think Jesus is, and tell me where you think Joseph got it wrong.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    That's not important.
                    On one hand you say that it is important, yet on the other hand you say that it is not.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    -- what's important is that Smith had a "clean sheet" upon which to write what God said about Jesus. A reasonable person would THINK that, given this incredibly important "ALL religions are corrupt and I'm here to set things straight" moment, that Smith would have gotten it right the first time.
                    What was the clean sheet? I am not sure if there is such a thing. I don't see it in this scenario.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    After all, why did God pick Smith to condemn all religions and establish a new one, if Smith was "just another guy" who couldn't get things right the first time?
                    Haven't we established that God works through imperfect instruments.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Because God is not the author of confusion.
                    If you ask me, after the death of the Apostles, the Christian church has been filled with confusion.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Smith SUPPOSEDLY had things handed to him "on a golden platter" (so to speak) and professed to be speaking directly for God.
                    If it were to be handed to him "on a golden platter", then God could have handed Joseph Smith printed copies of the Book of Mormon in English, along with the Doctrine and Covenants etc. It wasn't that easy. There was a lot of work involved in establishing the Restored Church.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I suspected I would get "the party line", but I had thought you were a little more "straight shooter" than you appear to be.
                    Don't judge. We haven't even started yet.

                    7UP: I live in Texas, like you, where there are not many LDS. I listen to Christian radio, and depending on the pastor, 80-95% of the time I find myself agreeing with what is being taught.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I think the Mormon Church is trying everything it can to be "more Christian", and Mormon teachings are becoming more like Christian denominations. ... So, have these religions suddenly become "acceptable"?
                    There were doctrines where Mormonism and mainstream Christianity never clashed. I have seen Christianity change though. I hear Christians speak of an "age of accountability" such that children who die are not condemned to hell for not accepting Jesus or not being baptized. I see Christians practice full immersion baptism rather than just sprinkling. I have seen Christians open up to the possibility that those who never even heard the gospel may not necessarily condemned to hell for eternity. I have seen doctrinal developments of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit change into ideas like "Social Trinitarianism", which is closer to the LDS view.

                    A while back, I was listening to a Christian radio show, where the pastor/host told a story about how he always taught about salvation throughout the decades of his ministry. The emphasis of his sermons were were always about grace and forgiveness. One day a caller dialed up and asked simply , "What about repentance?" This question shook him. The pastor said that one of his biggest regrets was preaching an incomplete gospel, whereby he did not sufficiently preach about turning away from sin.

                    This is a theme that I have seen stressed more and more frequently in some Christian churches, which is an improvement from a lot of the 'Free Grace Theology' points of view. In other words, in certain groups of Christianity, I see more criticism of those advocating an acquiescence in sin by allowing greatly sinful behavior to exist together with the same assurance of salvation as someone who does not currently allow greatly sinful behavior. Some of these teachings are headed more in the LDS direction.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
                    He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.
                    And then you all turned me over to one of your philosophy majors, with whom I had a long debate. And in the end he decided that Ex Nihilo wasn't so necessary in Christian theology after all.

                    7UP: I consider all of my own weaknesses and flaws and often wonder, "What would I have done if I had been raised in that culture and placed in those very difficult circumstances? Would I have done any better?" Sure, it is easy to look back and snipe and say, "oh, well I would of done this or that." But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.


                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I imagine you're a pretty decent guy. I would think that you would recognize the incredibly important task you had before you, having been chosen by God to set things straight, and to establish the "REAL" Church of God.
                    I think the weight was quite heavy on Joseph. Let's not pretend that he had it easy.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Therefore, I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife, consistency of doing what I say, etc. I wouldn't shrug it off as, "aw shucks, boys will be boys, and people will just have to accept me as I am".
                    Obviously he wasn't perfect, but I don't think that Joseph made as many errors as people accuse him of. I think that God placed him in very, very difficult circumstances. I know you don't believe that God did this, but just imagine for a moment. Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?


                    -7up

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      7UP: For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      No there isn't. There is debate between Christians and those who THINK they are Christians, but not between Christians.

                      Case in point.

                      However, the way Bill handles those theological debates is to brand those he disagrees with as heretics and non-Christians. Problem solved ... right Bill?



                      Jesus stands "at the right hand of the Father".* This is a position which represents the second person in authority.* This contradicts the idea of the members of the "Trinity" being "coequal".* We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*

                      Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable. I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea

                      However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.

                      The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.

                      Justin Martyr's analogy of Deity being a substance like fire is interesting. Let's say you take a fire and light another fire. You have the Father and the Son. Each has the same characteristics of Deity and therefore each person, in and of themselves, are fully Deity. This would even be true in the impossible/theoretical scenario of one of the flames going out. The other flame would STILL be fully Deity.

                      -7up

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God.
                        God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one". Let's get into it shall we?

                        Hebrews 1 is a good place to start in this discussion, and it does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to teach (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.)* The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father prior to his incarnation. **The chronology of Christ's appointment to authority, then being born into mortality and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given.*

                        The first scene I will bring up chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars"* -** Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", which is an angelic title (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God"). Nevertheless, we see that Jesus has superior qualities when compared to the other sons of god.

                        Heb 1
                        9*You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
                        Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
                        With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.


                        You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows") ... his fellow angels mentioned in the context of the passage (verses 4-9).* Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.*
                        We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.

                        Heb 1
                        8*But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:
                        Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
                        A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.


                        As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.

                        Heb 1
                        7*And of the angels He says:
                        Who makes His angels spirits
                        And His ministers a flame of fire.


                        The other angels are subject to Jesus.* Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, organizing the powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16). Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand; His Word, who fulfills the Father's will.* Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth) under the direction of the Father, as mentioned in verse 2 and 10 of this chapter.*

                        Let's look at verse 4, because it is important in this conversation:

                        Heb 1
                        4*having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

                        How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God?* He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position!* Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".* However, it is clearly well deserved.* As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.* Now read verses 2 and 3:

                        Heb 1
                        2 [God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3*who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

                        Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God".*

                        That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church.* This was long before the changes in doctrine which began to occur in the mid to second century A.D. in order to fit Greek philosophical monotheism. The doctrinal changes solidified in Nicea and was found in creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" and "same substance" and and other terms/phrases not found in scripture. How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.

                        That, in my opinion, is wrong. The very same titles that belong to God the Father are given to the son. Jesus was already spiritually perfect, and therefore Deity/God BEFORE entering mortality and had "inherited a more excellent name" BEFORE entering mortality. The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son. Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, who interacted with the people, under the will and direction of the Father.

                        So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate. We would especially expect this wording from the perspective of someone like Mosiah, who was seeing the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, as becoming flesh. The change was made as clarification by Joseph Smith for the benefit of us readers who, unlike Mosiah, are looking at it from a New Testament perspective and want to know which member of the Godhead is being referred to. Yet even from our perspective, it is correct to say that Mary is the mother of God. It is correct to say that "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people." Only those who deny the Deity of Christ would be restricted from such wording.

                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Yes, because the god of Mormonism had a perfect opportunity, creating a BRAND NEW religion, to get things right from the start. Instead, the god of Mormonism apparently chose a man who couldn't seem to keep his own story straight about a number of very critical events and issues pertaining to the foundation of this "new religion".

                          Mormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.

                          Now, back to the Book of Mormon and the view presented on the nature of Deity.

                          In Ether 3:16, the premortal Jesus presents himself to the Brother of Jared. In that text, the Old Testament God indicated that His spirit is anthropomorphic (having human form).

                          “Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit;
                          and man have I created after the body of my spirit;
                          and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I
                          appear unto my people in the flesh.”


                          This presents the uniquely LDS teaching that we are actually created in the "image and likeness" of God. (So really, it is more accurate to say that we humans are "theomorphic".)

                          Modalists and Trinitarians hold to a definition of God who is an eternal, omnipresent, indivisible, immaterial spirit essence, “without body, parts, or passions.” (A view which was derived from Greek philosophical thought.) This very concept is why modalism came into existence in the first place. If “God” is an eternally unchanging and indivisible essence, then you can't have three persons who are called “God”.

                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                          The Book of Mormon DOES refer to Jesus Christ as the “Father”. However, it also clarifies in what sense Jesus is understood as "Father". There are 3 different ways that Christ can be called Father:

                          1)Jesus Christ is “the Father of Heaven and of Earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning.”

                          This is still consistent with the Bible and current LDS doctrine, which teaches that all was created "by and through Jesus Christ".

                          2) Second, Jesus is called “Father” in the sense that those who are saved by Him become His children when we are "born again" in Christ.

                          There are several examples of this in the Book of Mormon, IF you bother to read the context.

                          3) The last one is the one that we often find in the Bible, and people often mistake it for modalism. This is the idea of “Divine Investiture of Authority.” As I explained in my previous post, Jesus was given the Father's name.

                          Jesus Christ is the chief representative of the Father’s will. The Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name. In terms of power and authority and will, His words and acts were and are those of the Father. Look at the Biblical example where God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to Israel during the exodus. Concerning that Angel, God said:

                          ‘Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not;
                          for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name
                          is in him.’ (Exodus 23:21)”


                          So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism". And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.

                          -7up
                          Last edited by seven7up; 04-29-2014, 04:07 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            Mormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.
                            Interesting you should try to make that comparison, 7up.

                            When God wanted us to know about Salvation through Christ, He sent us a sinless Savior prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and one in whom no guile was found, and sinless.

                            When Smith wanted us to believe that God sent HIMSELF to "restore" what Christ had done, God supposedly used a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist who couldn't get his story straight right from the beginning.

                            Yeah, I see the similarity!


                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism".
                              I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it DID teach the Trinity, then Modalism, THEN the "man can become God" nonsense.

                              And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.
                              No, it's not. Smith is a fraud, and Mormonism is his craft. And your attempts to prove the legitimacy of this new religion by using the Book of Mormon is like foolishness. I believe Smith was a pathological liar and a fraud. Why would I believe "but, here, read this book he wrote proving he's legit".?

                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                Obviously he wasn't perfect,
                                Agreed. It seems, when God brought us Salvation through Christ, He sent the perfect one. SUPPOSEDLY, when He wanted to "restore" what Christ built, He went to the other end of the spectrum.

                                Nah, didn't happen.

                                but I don't think that Joseph made as many errors as people accuse him of.
                                Naturally -- you believe he was a for really prophet.

                                I think that God placed him in very, very difficult circumstances.
                                And you think Jesus was NOT? I think Smith REPEATEDLY placed himself in difficult situations, like shacking up with the wives of his supporters/followers, having a bar in the hotel he owned while preaching against alcohol, defrauding his flock out of their money through the Kirtland Bank scandal...

                                I know you don't believe that God did this, but just imagine for a moment.
                                Ain't gonna happen.

                                Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?
                                Interesting you should bring up the wife, 7up. That's the point at which I first began confidently declaring Smith a fraud -- when I discovered that he came up with this cowardly "prophesy" that his faithful and obedient wife would be DESTROYED if she didn't put up with his serial adultery.

                                Source: Phony Prophesy


                                And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law" (DC 132:54.)

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                How do you buy this nonsense, 7up? How do you make yourself believe that God would have Smith threaten his faithful wife with DESTRUCTION for no other reason that she got tired of his sexual exploits outside of their marriage?
                                Last edited by Cow Poke; 04-29-2014, 06:46 AM.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X