LDS LDS---YIKES!

[He is the way]

It's strange that BYU would allow him to be an academic fellow there, then...hmmm.

Also, he's working with primary source documents. What are you working with?

There are a lot of academic people that have worked at the BYU. Remember that Judas worked with Jesus. He still betrayed Jesus. I am also working with primary documents that I know to be true and not second hand.

 

[He is the way]

Yes, there are a few who don't, so you can pick the ones that you can agree with. Of course God always existed---nothing else did. I know you will not believe anything different than what JS has said.
Salvation is not based on our righteousness---it is based on the righteousness of Jesus.

It is based on both His righteousness and ours:

(New Testament | 1 Peter 4:12 - 19)

12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

(New Testament | Titus 3:1 - 14)

1 PUT them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
12 When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter.
13 Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.
14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

 

[dzheremi]

There are a lot of academic people that have worked at the BYU. Remember that Judas worked with Jesus. He still betrayed Jesus. I am also working with primary documents that I know to be true and not second hand.

Really? Would you care to share them with us? Because you have levied some serious charges against an academic historian of Mormonism, and it is hard not to see them as a defense mechanism against something that threatens your religious narrative. But if you are working with primary source documents in an academic fashion, it would be interesting to see how you come to different conclusions than other people who are presumably working with the same documents. (This is all stuff in the "Joseph Smith Papers" project, I'd imagine.)

 

[BigDaddy4]

Jesus was being specific when He said:

(New Testament | John 10:16)

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

He did not say all nations will hear my voice, but He said:

(New Testament | Matthew 24:14)

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

None of which answers the question. If the sheep and shepherd are figurative, why is "hear my voice" literal? Matthew 24:14 kinda shoots down the literal in that, unless you also believe Jesus will literally be doing that as well??

 

[BigDaddy4]

Wait for it...

 

[Peter1000]

This would be a lot less hilarious if you had posted it without subsequently posting a bunch of gobbledy-gook about the conservation of mass. Is it science's fault that the Mormon religion was founded by a sexual predator, and continues in some ways to espouse his theologized sexual obsessions? If not, then I don't see how this has anything to do with anything.



Yep! Nothing about Joseph Smith in the entire thing.



Yep again! Sometimes they even start parasitic pseudo-Christian religions based on visions they supposedly had in groves when they were children...talk about sidetracked!



That why He gave us His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, and the perfect, blameless, and holy lover of mankind.



Amen. And I would submit that it is not loving to subject young women to pressure to enter into elicit relationships with a supposed prophet, with spiritual threats and promises dangling as carrots and sticks, but that is the story of Mormonism. It is so different than the agape love preached throughout the Gospels.

That is not the story of Mormonism. If any of that was true do you think there would be a church of 20,000,000 people who revere a man that would have done this? No. Your anti-Mormon slant on plural marriage is dishonest at best and disgusting at its worst.

 

[mmksparbud]

That is not the story of Mormonism. If any of that was true do you think there would be a church of 20,000,000 people who revere a man that would have done this? No. Your anti-Mormon slant on plural marriage is dishonest at best and disgusting at its worst.

And there are 1.7 BILLION Muslims---does that make them not deluded and right? It is plural marriage, which they also advocate, that is disgusting. The NT says one wife, that ends it.

 

[dzheremi]

That is not the story of Mormonism. If any of that was true do you think there would be a church of 20,000,000 people who revere a man that would have done this? No.

Actually, yes. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who revere the sexual predator Muhammad, so why wouldn't or couldn't there be 20,000,000 people in the Mormon religion who revere the sexual predator Joseph Smith?

Your anti-Mormon slant on plural marriage is dishonest at best and disgusting at its worst.

Did you listen to the podcast which goes into depth on this issue? The slant is coming from the Mormon organization itself, not from those who point out the reality that the Mormon organization tries so desperately to justify, hide, or equivocate about.

"The happiness letter" is not really what they tell you it is; when you look at it with the historical background in mind it is very obviously a piece of manipulative, disgusting drivel, meant to pressure a woman into an elicit relationship with Joseph Smith. And that is but one of several such examples.

If anything is "disgusting", it's the real history of Mormonism! No wonder your leaders try to make it into something it isn't. But you are only deceiving yourself by not allowing yourself to see the truth, and instead saying I'm being anti-Mormon. That is a cop out. At least engage with the sources, as the non-Mormon and honest Mormon academics do. If you're unwilling to do that, then you don't really have room to say anything about anyone, since none of us made Joseph write the letters that he did, make the passes that he made at his associates' young daughters, and so on. That's a matter of record. You're being a coward by attempting to 'shoot the messenger' here.

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, there are a few who don't, so you can pick the ones that you can agree with. Of course God always existed---nothing else did. I know you will not believe anything different than what JS has said.
Salvation is not based on our righteousness---it is based on the righteousness of Jesus.

It is based on our righteousnes. If the Holy Spirit tells you to go do something for the Lord and you either do not hear it or do not do it, you are not going to be going to where Jesus lives for eternity. Jesus even says that your righteousness must be greater than the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees you will not enter into eternal life. (Matthew 5:20)

So righteousness has got to do with something, right?

 

[Peter1000]

And there are 1.7 BILLION Muslims---does that make them not deluded and right? It is plural marriage, which they also advocate, that is disgusting. The NT says one wife, that ends it.

All I am saying is that if JS had done such horrible things, we would not be following him. So because we are, I suggest to you that all the anti-Mormon literature is going the wrong direction, not my father and mother.

 

[He is the way]

None of which answers the question. If the sheep and shepherd are figurative, why is "hear my voice" literal? Matthew 24:14 kinda shoots down the literal in that, unless you also believe Jesus will literally be doing that as well??

He didn't say hear the voice of my sheep. He did not say read my words. He said hear MY voice. It is plain enough to me.

 

[dzheremi]

Weren't you the one who said two pages ago (post #305) that it is difficult to tell when Jesus is speaking figuratively and when He is speaking literally? I guess that doubt goes away when you need it to.

 

[Peter1000]

Actually, yes. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who revere the sexual predator Muhammad, so why wouldn't or couldn't there be 20,000,000 people in the Mormon religion who revere the sexual predator Joseph Smith?



Did you listen to the podcast which goes into depth on this issue? The slant is coming from the Mormon organization itself, not from those who point out the reality that the Mormon organization tries so desperately to justify, hide, or equivocate about.

"The happiness letter" is not really what they tell you it is; when you look at it with the historical background in mind it is very obviously a piece of manipulative, disgusting drivel, meant to pressure a woman into an elicit relationship with Joseph Smith. And that is but one of several such examples.

If anything is "disgusting", it's the real history of Mormonism! No wonder your leaders try to make it into something it isn't. But you are only deceiving yourself by not allowing yourself to see the truth, and instead saying I'm being anti-Mormon. That is a cop out. At least engage with the sources, as the non-Mormon and honest Mormon academics do. If you're unwilling to do that, then you don't really have room to say anything about anyone, since none of us made Joseph write the letters that he did, make the passes that he made at his associates' young daughters, and so on. That's a matter of record. You're being a coward by attempting to 'shoot the messenger' here.

Tell me what your sources are? I know immediately if it is anti-Mormon or not. If it was a disgruntled Mormon, I am not interested. If it is a disgruntled non-Mormon that had a Mormon wife, I am not interested. If it is a charlatan non-Mormon looking to make some money off of his book, I am not interested. If it is a non-Mormon period, I am not interested. Did I cover my bases on what sources I look to for information?

Did JS do some odd things, introducing plural marriage, yes, I will agree with you. But here is where we part. I truly believe that when he says he had an angel come to him with a drawn sword and threatened that if he did not get going with introducing plural marriage he would be destroyed and another would take his place, I believe that happened.
To you that is just a grand excuse for JS to start his escapades into the sexual fantasy world of many wives. We are never going to come to an agreement on an immoral, sex-infested, adulterous JS. Never, no matter what you show me or tell me, I will never believe what you are saying.
I believe the Lord was with him the entire time, and in fact had to yank his head sometimes the right direction to get him to open up this doctrine that was seriously practiced between 1400bc and 0ad. Prophets and kings and common men all practiced this disgusting form of manhood for 1400 years before Jesus said it was enough.

With JS he needed to seed the church quickly and build up the population of the church quickly before satan could smash it to sunder. So Jesus introduced plural marriage again for about 50 years until the church reached a critical mass of population that it could never be taken from the earth again. This is just 1 of the reason Jesus allowed plural marriage again.

So you can rant and rage and kick and scream about JS, but I will not believe a word you say because I too, have studied him out in my mind and my prayers and I know he was OK with Jesus Christ and was doing what Jesus told him to do.

 

[mmksparbud]

It is based on our righteousnes. If the Holy Spirit tells you to go do something for the Lord and you either do not hear it or do not do it, you are not going to be going to where Jesus lives for eternity. Jesus even says that your righteousness must be greater than the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees you will not enter into eternal life. (Matthew 5:20)

So righteousness has got to do with something, right?

Our righteousness is greater than the scribes and Pharisees---it is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Isa_64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

[mmksparbud]

Tell me what your sources are? I know immediately if it is anti-Mormon or not. If it was a disgruntled Mormon, I am not interested. If it is a disgruntled non-Mormon that had a Mormon wife, I am not interested. If it is a charlatan non-Mormon looking to make some money off of his book, I am not interested. If it is a non-Mormon period, I am not interested. Did I cover my bases on what sources I look to for information?

Did JS do some odd things, introducing plural marriage, yes, I will agree with you. But here is where we part. I truly believe that when he says he had an angel come to him with a drawn sword and threatened that if he did not get going with introducing plural marriage he would be destroyed and another would take his place, I believe that happened.
To you that is just a grand excuse for JS to start his escapades into the sexual fantasy world of many wives. We are never going to come to an agreement on an immoral, sex-infested, adulterous JS. Never, no matter what you show me or tell me, I will never believe what you are saying.
I believe the Lord was with him the entire time, and in fact had to yank his head sometimes the right direction to get him to open up this doctrine that was seriously practiced between 1400bc and 0ad. Prophets and kings and common men all practiced this disgusting form of manhood for 1400 years before Jesus said it was enough.

With JS he needed to seed the church quickly and build up the population of the church quickly before satan could smash it to sunder. So Jesus introduced plural marriage again for about 50 years until the church reached a critical mass of population that it could never be taken from the earth again. This is just 1 of the reason Jesus allowed plural marriage again.

So you can rant and rage and kick and scream about JS, but I will not believe a word you say because I too, have studied him out in my mind and my prayers and I know he was OK with Jesus Christ and was doing what Jesus told him to do.

LOL! God repopulated the earth first with 2 people, then with 8. He needed JS--under penalty of death---to take up a bunch of wives when neither Adam and Eve or the very first of their children had, until Lamech, and according to Jewish websites, polygamy was not practiced by the majority--just a few. You've been shown those before and will always ignore them. We know only too well that you do not care for facts---you will just keep on believing the lies instead.

 

[BigDaddy4]

He didn't say hear the voice of my sheep. He did not say read my words. He said hear MY voice. It is plain enough to me.

Jesus, the human being, but who is still God, is not on this earth. By what means do you think he would personally speak to the billions of Christians in the world over the nearly 2,000 years since he left the earth?

Here's a clue:
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” John 14:26.

 

[He is the way]

Jesus, the human being, but who is still God, is not on this earth. By what means do you think he would personally speak to the billions of Christians in the world over the nearly 2,000 years since he left the earth?

Here's a clue:
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” John 14:26.

Jesus was speaking to His apostles when He said “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” John 14:26.

He was not talking about His other sheep which are not of this fold who will hear His voice.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Jesus was speaking to His apostles when He said “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” John 14:26.

He was not talking about His other sheep which are not of this fold who will hear His voice.

Again, you avoid answering a direct question. Here it is again:

By what means do you think he would personally speak to the billions of Christians in the world over the nearly 2,000 years since he left the earth?

 

[dzheremi]

Tell me what your sources are? I know immediately if it is anti-Mormon or not.

They are all there at the link. They include such 'anti-Mormon' sources as the LDS official website, the Joseph Smith Papers Website, and Archive.org.

If it was a disgruntled Mormon, I am not interested. If it is a disgruntled non-Mormon that had a Mormon wife, I am not interested. If it is a charlatan non-Mormon looking to make some money off of his book, I am not interested. If it is a non-Mormon period, I am not interested. Did I cover my bases on what sources I look to for information?

You talked about what you're not interested in, as though the sources themselves ought to care whether or not you are personally interested in them. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much par for the course for you.

Did JS do some odd things, introducing plural marriage, yes, I will agree with you. But here is where we part. I truly believe that when he says he had an angel come to him with a drawn sword and threatened that if he did not get going with introducing plural marriage he would be destroyed and another would take his place, I believe that happened.

That's fine. This is not about what you believe instead of what the sources themselves indicate. Your belief in JS' encounter with an angel is a religious belief, and I'm not talking about your religious belief. I'm talking about -- or rather, the historian at the podcast link is talking about -- the historical background of the happiness letter. It's not a religious claim to begin with these particular non-Mormons, as they're not advancing a different religious belief instead. (So the point is "Here's the background to the letter", not "Here's what you ought to believe in instead of Mormonism".)

To you that is just a grand excuse for JS to start his escapades into the sexual fantasy world of many wives. We are never going to come to an agreement on an immoral, sex-infested, adulterous JS. Never, no matter what you show me or tell me, I will never believe what you are saying.

I know that, Peter. Did it ever occur to you that I am posting that for the thread's general consumption, and not necessarily for you in particular? I mean, yeah, I think it would be good if you did listen to it, but nobody can or should force you to believe anything in particular. I can only share what I've found that soundly refutes the Mormon narrative. Whether or not you are willing to listen to it is on you.

I believe the Lord was with him the entire time, and in fact had to yank his head sometimes the right direction to get him to open up this doctrine that was seriously practiced between 1400bc and 0ad. Prophets and kings and common men all practiced this disgusting form of manhood for 1400 years before Jesus said it was enough.

Okay.

With JS he needed to seed the church quickly and build up the population of the church quickly before satan could smash it to sunder. So Jesus introduced plural marriage again for about 50 years until the church reached a critical mass of population that it could never be taken from the earth again. This is just 1 of the reason Jesus allowed plural marriage again.

Why wouldn't He have done so when the Church He founded in the wake of His resurrection was in its infancy, then? Why does the Mormon Jesus care so much more for Joseph Smith than He apparently did for His original apostles and disciples?

So you can rant and rage and kick and scream about JS, but I will not believe a word you say because I too, have studied him out in my mind and my prayers and I know he was OK with Jesus Christ and was doing what Jesus told him to do.

Nobody is 'ranting and raging and kicking and screaming' about JS. Geez. Get over the fact that this is not a Mormon safe space. All I did was post a link to a podcast that showed the true lasciviousness of Joseph Smith, as attested to by the people he was around at the time. It is only in your head that this amounts to ranting and raging and all this.

The fact that you are sent into histrionics by the mere presence of a podcast link and someone who says that Joseph Smith was a pervert because that's what the historical record shows makes your protestations that you will never believe XYZ sound more like a reflexive self-defense mechanism than calm and assured conviction. I know that tone is hard to convey through text, so I very well may have gotten you wrong here, but I know that I don't accuse Mormons of 'ranting and raging and kicking and screaming' about Christianity, only of crucially and fatally misunderstanding the Christian religion that they claim to be the true practitioners of. In reality, while doing so I am sitting here sipping a cool glass of water and playing a YouTube video in the background on early exegesis of the Bible in the Islamic tradition. Ho hum. Another day.

"Be still, and know that I am God", remember?

 

[Peter1000]

Actually, yes. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who revere the sexual predator Muhammad, so why wouldn't or couldn't there be 20,000,000 people in the Mormon religion who revere the sexual predator Joseph Smith?

What are you talking about? What has Mohammed got to do with JS, who was not a sexual predator according to my studies and my prayers. You just are studying the wrong sources.

Did you listen to the podcast which goes into depth on this issue?

No. Who is the Mormon organization?

"The happiness letter" is not really what they tell you it is; when you look at it with the historical background in mind it is very obviously a piece of manipulative, disgusting drivel, meant to pressure a woman into an elicit relationship with Joseph Smith. And that is but one of several such examples.

You have not done your homework on the "happiness letter". Anything that has anything to do with John Bennett is not worth reading. He was a real help to the church for about a year, but he turned into a real scoundrel. The things that you are trying to put on JS, is what JB did, and for that he was fired as the mayor of Nauvoo, and excommunicated from the church. He then went on a speaking tour around the US to denounce JS and was involved in many ludicrous efforts to discredit him. One of those efforts was a letter showing up at Nancy Rigdon's home that was unsigned and undated. Nancy's father when hearing that the letter was from JS fervently denied it, knowing the handwriting of JS. Others too denied it on handwriting alone.

So your "happiness letter" again is a great source for you, who apparently are not intrested in the whole truth, but only want greasy little tidbits of innuendo about JS. Well you got it, but to those who want the whole truth, you look silly.

If anything is "disgusting", it's the real history of Mormonism! No wonder your leaders try to make it into something it isn't. But you are only deceiving yourself by not allowing yourself to see the truth, and instead saying I'm being anti-Mormon. That is a cop out. At least engage with the sources, as the non-Mormon and honest Mormon academics do. If you're unwilling to do that, then you don't really have room to say anything about anyone, since none of us made Joseph write the letters that he did, make the passes that he made at his associates' young daughters, and so on. That's a matter of record. You're being a coward by attempting to 'shoot the messenger' here.

The emergence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best story of the 19th century. That God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ would visit the earth and allow a man to see them both, (just like Stephen and John in the NT) is worthy of reading and studying and praying about.

All your honest academics amounts to nothing but a wind of prejudice of the first order. Find a better source of your information about JS, certainly not John Bennett. Do your homework next time.