Joseph Smith stated that without the ordinances and authority of the priesthood no man can see the face of God and live (D&C 84:21,22). Yet, Smith's whole first vision account - where he claims that he was personally visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ - took place (supposedly) in 1820. If D&C 84:21,22 is really a revelation, then why did Joseph survive his personal encounter in the grove with God? On the other hand, since he did survive, doesn't that prove that the D&C revelation is bogus! Smith didn't receive any "priesthood" until nine years after his personal visit from God.

You have to have a good memory to be a false prophet!

i'm guite sure mnn has an answer for everything including this one, if not i will give you one. U see jo was a special person, and just before god visited him, john the baptist dropped by and gave him the keys to the door that unlocks the BS. end of story,

Originally posted by rangerbob

i'm guite sure mnn has an answer for everything including this one, if not i will give you one. U see jo was a special person, and just before god visited him, john the baptist dropped by and gave him the keys to the door that unlocks the BS. end of story,

I don't think MNN is posting anymore. Probably got sore at me for telling him the truth.

That's not the only interesting contradiction.

In chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham, in the Pearl of Great Price... Joe "translated" that the Egyptians carried forward the curse of Ham, and through them the curse continued in the land, starting with the first one of them, a man named "Pharoah," son of "Egyptus." (Yeah, really original writing, eh?) The author goes on to explain that even though this man named Pharoah was a righteous and just man, he could not hold the priesthood... because he was of this cursed lineage.

Joe proudly and often stated that he is a direct descendant of Ephraim, did he not? Tell me... Ephraim is the son of who?

i dont know tell me?

Originally posted by RightIdea

That's not the only interesting contradiction.

In chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham, in the Pearl of Great Price... Joe "translated" that the Egyptians carried forward the curse of Ham, and through them the curse continued in the land, starting with the first one of them, a man named "Pharoah," son of "Egyptus." (Yeah, really original writing, eh?) The author goes on to explain that even though this man named Pharoah was a righteous and just man, he could not hold the priesthood... because he was of this cursed lineage.

Joe proudly and often stated that he is a direct descendant of Ephraim, did he not? Tell me... Ephraim is the son of who? :ribrown:

You are right about that one. Although Justjohnna, a Mormon apologist who sometimes posts here gave us some song and dance about Egyptus wasn't really Egyptian and didn't come under the curse - you'll find it in one of the threads I started.

Rangerbob, Ephraim is the son of Joseph... and the Egyptian daughter of Poti-phera. By his own "revelation," Joe is part Egyption and therefore cannot hold the priesthood.


Crusader, that is ludicrous. The passage in the Book of Abraham explicitly states that he was under this curse, and that they were "that race which preserved the curse in the land!"

Yes, Egyptus wasn't necessarily Egyptian. Pharoah, the son of Egyptus, was the first Egyptian according to the passage. The passage explicitly states they were both under the curse, though. It says, flat out, that Pharoah was a righteous and just man, and yet couldn't hold the priesthood for exactly this reason, because he was under the curse of Ham. "Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharoah, the eldest son of Egyptus, daughter of Ham..."

So one cannot possibly argue that they weren't Egyptian, and one can't argue that they didn't carry the curse and preserve that curse in the land.

hey look at it this way, if there werer no mormons, we would be here talking about jehovah witness, and there aint nothin more borning than that

Not necessarily true.

My ministry may have helped a JW find Christ this past weekend, at the Denver People's Fair. Check out our subforum, in the pics thread..

Originally posted by RightIdea

Rangerbob, Ephraim is the son of Joseph... and the Egyptian daughter of Poti-phera. By his own "revelation," Joe is part Egyption and therefore cannot hold the priesthood.


Crusader, that is ludicrous. The passage in the Book of Abraham explicitly states that he was under this curse, and that they were "that race which preserved the curse in the land!"

Yes, Egyptus wasn't necessarily Egyptian. Pharoah, the son of Egyptus, was the first Egyptian according to the passage. The passage explicitly states they were both under the curse, though. It says, flat out, that Pharoah was a righteous and just man, and yet couldn't hold the priesthood for exactly this reason, because he was under the curse of Ham. "Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharoah, the eldest son of Egyptus, daughter of Ham..."


So one cannot possibly argue that they weren't Egyptian, and one can't argue that they didn't carry the curse and preserve that curse in the land.

I'm in total agreement - however, as you probably know, LDS apologists will grasp at anything to justify false prophecy.

Smith's revelations were full of all kinds of strange things; like: what kind of chariots did the Nephites have in 90 BC, some 1500 years before the introduction of the wheel in the Western Hemisphere (Alma 18:9).

Or, How do Mormons account for the italicized words in the King James Version being found in the BOM? (Compare Mosiah 14 and Isaiah 53). When a word was italicized in the KJV, it means that it did not appear in the original Hebrew or Greek).

Or, Why didn't Jesus return in 1891 as Joseph Smith predicted (History of the Church, Vol 2. pg. 182).

It goes on and on.

Indeed they do. But that's not grasping at straws. That's irrational or blatantly dishonest.

Originally posted by RightIdea

Indeed they do. But that's not grasping at straws. That's irrational or blatantly dishonest.

I think "irrational" is the right word. Cognitive dissonance demands some type of response - irrational as it might be.....otherwise, the individual is unable to maintain his/her sanity.

Hi Crusader,

In Mormonism there is a belief about a person's body being "translated", and if that happens then it is believed that a person can see God. Joseph Smith was one of many people whom they believe this happened to.

when i did drugs i got transtated a whole lot

Originally posted by Yoshiyahu

Hi Crusader,

In Mormonism there is a belief about a person's body being "translated", and if that happens then it is believed that a person can see God. Joseph Smith was one of many people whom they believe this happened to.

Yosh, I think you are mistaken. The doctrine of the "translation of the saints," or "the rapture," is referring to the Second Coming of Christ when believers will be resurrected and "translated" to glorified bodies (like unto Christ's glorified body). As far as I know, Mormon belief in "translation" is pretty much in line with this - it does not refer to some type of individual experience apart from the "last day."

yes we are living in the last of the last last days, and i mean it this time.

sign, Wolf I Cry