LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[ArmenianJohn]

I already answered you: just about everything you cited was their own individual opinion.

I didn't ask you if they stated their own individual opinions. I asked you if you agree with them, if you think they are right or wrong. So, in other words, you are still avoiding answering me.

But this is typical. Mormons dodge the tough questions that they are afraid to answer.

 

[Ironhold]

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God [i.e. the Mormon Church] and the other is the church of the devil [i.e.. the Christian Church]; wherefore whosoever belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).

You're reading into things.

The Church of the Lamb is all who believe and follow.

The church of the devil is all who don't.

This crosses denominational lines.

 

[Ironhold]

That's a weird thing to say about married people - you can say that about any married couple, especially if they're childless. If people have entered into marriage they are doing so in part for the purpose of having sex. There's no other reason to be married.

A lot of the marriages that took place were, in fact, marriages of convenience. Many of the women were widows, spinsters, single mothers, or others who would have been left destitute given the absolute lack of social protections and the stigma concerning such individuals.

I actually made a post some time back where a historian discovered evidence to the effect that one of Joseph's plural wives had been raped by members of an anti-Mormon mob and left unable to have children due to the damage she sustained. Joseph married her because of this, as under the societal situation at the time she'd have been treated as little better than a prostitute even though she was the victim of the situation. The marriage was basically the only way to give her some dignity.

 

[Ironhold]

I didn't ask you if they stated their own individual opinions. I asked you if you agree with them, if you think they are right or wrong. So, in other words, you are still avoiding answering me.

But this is typical. Mormons dodge the tough questions that they are afraid to answer.

Have things really gotten so bad that you're accusing us of cowardice simply because we don't spit out the answer you want to hear?

How does that reflect the light of Christ?

Answer that, and then maybe we can move forward.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Have things really gotten so bad that you're accusing us of cowardice simply because we don't spit out the answer you want to hear?

Things seem to be that bad - you really don't want to answer. And that would be fine if you would just say that you don't want to answer, rather than passing off a non-answer as an answer.

The only answer I "want to hear" is the answer to the question I asked, whether it be yes, no, that you agree, that you disagree, that you don't care to answer, or whatever, as long as it is the answer to the question(s) I actually asked.

It's rude to dodge someone's question by providing a non-answer as a distraction. My calling you out on it is simply that - calling you out on it. Now you're trying to pin me as somehow being rude for calling you out for avoiding to answer the question I asked.

How does that reflect the light of Christ?

Answer that, and then maybe we can move forward.

How does it not reflect the light of Christ? Using the logic and reason He provided to me in order to have a discussion and to call out when the person I'm discussing with is being irrational is in no way displeasing to the Lord.

In your religion is it displeasing to your god that someone would use logic and reason to have a discussion?

I asked you for your view of whether Mormon leaders who made the statements I posted were right or wrong. You tell me it's their opinion (which I already know). So, you're avoiding answering my question. If you don't want to, at least say you don't want to answer. But instead you are not answering, providing a non-answer, and claiming that the non-answer is your answer.

It's like if you asked me whether I prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream and I answered "seven" and then when you accuse me of not answering the question you asked I would say, "I DID answer you!", referring to my answer of "seven". An answer which does not address the question asked is not a real answer.

I've experienced this countless times with mormons and I know that the reason is that they don't want to answer the questions they're asked. They are instructed to obfuscate and muddle things by providing an "answer" that does something to help them say what THEY want to say, to change the subject to what THEY want the subject to be. That is a fundamental lack of respect for people, but that is what mormons are trained to do and it is what they DO.

But whatever the reason behind it in your case, the fact remains you did not answer my question, several times. And then you try to blame me for that. I've seen this before, you're not fooling me or anyone else.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

A lot of the marriages that took place were, in fact, marriages of convenience. Many of the women were widows, spinsters, single mothers, or others who would have been left destitute given the absolute lack of social protections and the stigma concerning such individuals.

Not only is it untrue that many of these women wanted to marry Joseph Smith to be helped out of a bad situation, but most of these women were married to other men (and remained married to other men which means that polyandry is also permitted by the Mormon religion). A couple of them who were not married were 14-year-old girls, so that makes Joseph Smith a child molestor.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty disgusting that you and the mormons try to portray these women, who were victims of Joseph Smith's lies and fake "revelations", were spinsters and other kinds of desperate women who wanted to marry Joseph Smith for help. What garbage that is - more mormon lies. I don't know where they teach you folks these lies but I'm guessing it's somewhere in the official church.

I actually made a post some time back where a historian discovered evidence to the effect that one of Joseph's plural wives had been raped by members of an anti-Mormon mob and left unable to have children due to the damage she sustained. Joseph married her because of this, as under the societal situation at the time she'd have been treated as little better than a prostitute even though she was the victim of the situation. The marriage was basically the only way to give her some dignity.

Well I'm sure that the historian is a bogus mormon "historian" who is making up more lies. Of course, until you provide the details we won't know either way, but I won't hold my breath that the details and "evidence" will be forthcoming at any time.

If anyone did any raping it would be Joseph Smith who committed statutory rape against underage, teen girls. What a disgusting pervert and wicked son of the devil he was. And mormons defend Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all their pervert church leaders. Which makes them kind of hypocritical when they criticize Warren Jeffs and others for doing what the other church leaders did because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young COMMANDED that it be done.

In the end, mormonism is an occultic, perverted sex religion. God hates the mormon religion.

 

[Ironhold]

You're not showing the light of Christ.

At all.

A couple of them who were not married were 14-year-old girls

...which happened once upon a time.

I'd suggest that you go back and look up the relevant laws and societal circumstances before saying too much more on this topic.

It's pretty disgusting that you and the mormons try to portray these women, who were victims of Joseph Smith's lies and fake "revelations", were spinsters and other kinds of desperate women who wanted to marry Joseph Smith for help.

Again - take a look at the actual history before going any further.

What garbage that is - more mormon lies. I don't know where they teach you folks these lies but I'm guessing it's somewhere in the official church.

Did you even stop to read your post aloud before hitting the "submit" button?

Well I'm sure that the historian is a bogus mormon "historian" who is making up more lies. Of course, until you provide the details we won't know either way, but I won't hold my breath that the details and "evidence" will be forthcoming at any time.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3613791-155/shocking-historical-finding-mormon-icon-eliza

The statements are attributed to Snow herself via a scribe who tried to write down the woman's stories.

If anyone did any raping it would be Joseph Smith who committed statutory rape against underage, teen girls.

The age of consent laws we have now didn't exist back then in a fashion any of us would recognize.

So you might want to quit throwing them around.

 

[Sophrosyne]

LDS theology is that the key prophet over each dispensation will have the right to, in essence, testify when the people from that dispensation come to receive their judgement.

That means Moses, Isaiah, and others will fulfill that capacity as well.

That means that non Mormons are out because Mr Smith isn't on their menu

 

[Sophrosyne]

You're reading into things.

The Church of the Lamb is all who believe and follow.

The church of the devil is all who don't.

This crosses denominational lines.

I'm sorry but I don't believe in your "Church of the Lamb" so therefore according to your folks I'm in the church of the Devil. I don't think the Bible equates its believers as the "Church of the Lamb" but rather the bride of Christ.

 

[Ironhold]

Things seem to be that bad - you really don't want to answer.

If I'd have cared either way about what they said, I'd have said so.

There's your answer, the answer you've had for pages now.

Remember: I work in a profession where people spout off on a routine basis. Some of my rivals in the field are so infamous for blowing smoke that they've become punchlines. Past a certain point, I just tune things out and go my own way.

In your religion is it displeasing to your god that someone would use logic and reason to have a discussion?

What's that about dodges?

I noted that most of the material you cited as "proof" had no theological weight and so was regarded as nothing more than the personal opinions of the speakers. Rather than address this fact, you instead went off in a new direction. Your posts make it clear that anyone who doesn't vocally disagree with the material is somehow doomed to Hell as far as you're concerned.

I've experienced this countless times with mormons and I know that the reason is that they don't want to answer the questions they're asked. They are instructed to obfuscate and muddle things by providing an "answer" that does something to help them say what THEY want to say, to change the subject to what THEY want the subject to be. That is a fundamental lack of respect for people, but that is what mormons are trained to do and it is what they DO.

And your proof of this is what now?

 

[Ironhold]

I'm sorry but I don't believe in your "Church of the Lamb" so therefore according to your folks I'm in the church of the Devil. I don't think the Bible equates its believers as the "Church of the Lamb" but rather the bride of Christ.

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes I did, and the problem is YOUR church is the ones that calls themselves that way not the rest of of Christians therefore you are trying to say that identity is the same for us and it isn't. It is just another facade used by mormonism to seem more like Christians to suck in ignorant naive Christians into your group. The fact that the quote lists another "church" as the "church of the devil" puts the icing on the cake because mainline Christianity don't consider other churches that way if anything we consider groups like yours that way instead. I've seem mormons here trying to flip their lies into truths and our truths into lies by equating they are the same when they are not and opposite when they are the same.

 

[Peter1000]

No, I look on them as Apostles. The last prophet was John the Baptist.

Christ is the Chief Cornerstone of the Church and therefore He is the Foundation. His Apostles were charged and authorized to build upon the Church further upon Him. There are many Churches today that have Apostolic Succession going back to Christ's Apostles and they have not apostatized.

Read the book of Ephesians to find out what the real foundation of the early church of jesus Christ was. Yes, Jesus is the chief cornerstone, so is the most important part of the foundation, but since you knew that, I'm sure you have read Ephesians 2:20 and you also knew that the rest of the foundation is made up of apostles and prophets. And since Paul said this when the apostles and prophets were still alive, he meant "living apostles and prophets".

I'm interested in why you didn't mention them? Aren't you a bible follower? IOW what ever the bible says, we do, what ever the bible does not say, we don't do. Paul obviously knew that living apostles and prophets are essential to the church.
Jesus also obviously knew they were important. The bible records their thoughts, so why don't you believe living apostles and prophets are important to the church today?

The apostles were called by Jesus to take care of the entire church in all the world, and as 1 died, Jesus replaced him with another apostle, for a time. The apostles ordained bishops to take care of a very local area, with limited powers to control a local area. So when you say the there are many churches today have apostolic succession, does that mean they have living apostles? No, it means they have bishops that took over the church and immediately the large sees, set up thrones for their bishops and they argued the entire day long as who was the most important see. They argued territory, money, doctrines, when the day of Easter was going to be, how many books in the bible. There is nothing religious related that these bishops did not argue and fight over. Read the history, when the apostles were gone, the apostacy floodgates opened up wide and churches were in trouble . No apostolic succession. Bishops were and are not Apostles.

 

[Peter1000]

Yes I did, and the problem is YOUR church is the ones that calls themselves that way not the rest of of Christians therefore you are trying to say that identity is the same for us and it isn't. It is just another facade used by mormonism to seem more like Christians to suck in ignorant naive Christians into your group. The fact that the quote lists another "church" as the "church of the devil" puts the icing on the cake because mainline Christianity don't consider other churches that way if anything we consider groups like yours that way instead. I've seem mormons here trying to flip their lies into truths and our truths into lies by equating they are the same when they are not and opposite when they are the same.

We are not trying to be the same as normal Christianity. We are trying to maintain our distance from normal Christianity.
We don't have to lie about anything. I will tell you the truth about anything. Just ask me.

 

[drstevej]

And since Paul said this when the apostles and prophets were still alive, he meant "living apostles and prophets".

Reading your view into the text? There is no indication in the text that there is an expanding foundation (i.e. yet to be apostle and prophets).

 

[drstevej]

We are not trying to be the same as normal Christianity. We are trying to maintain our distance from normal Christianity.

Rightly so. Smithism is another gospel. (Gal. 1:6)

 

[Sophrosyne]

We are not trying to be the same as normal Christianity. We are trying to maintain our distance from normal Christianity.
We don't have to lie about anything. I will tell you the truth about anything. Just ask me.

I guess then all this facade being put on by mormons telling other normal Christians that they are Christians too doesn't exist eh?

 

[Lulav]

MOD HAT
Please remember when posting
to address the post and not
the poster.
This is not a 'we' vs 'them' arena.
Calling someone's understanding
beliefs or choices into the debate
will only incur violations
and the closing of the thread.
So
​

 

[Super14LDS]

Rightly so. Smithism is another gospel. (Gal. 1:6)

It is the restored gospel.

 

[Super14LDS]

Yes I did, and the problem is YOUR church is the ones that calls themselves that way not the rest of of Christians therefore you are trying to say that identity is the same for us and it isn't. It is just another facade used by mormonism to seem more like Christians to suck in ignorant naive Christians into your group. The fact that the quote lists another "church" as the "church of the devil" puts the icing on the cake because mainline Christianity don't consider other churches that way if anything we consider groups like yours that way instead. I've seem mormons here trying to flip their lies into truths and our truths into lies by equating they are the same when they are not and opposite when they are the same.

Authority or the lack thereof is at the crux of the matter per this quote from Joseph Smith

... "You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man," he said, "if not done in view of ... Only after baptism can the gift be conferred by one in authority. ...

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Holy_Ghost