LDS Scathing Lawsuit Seeks Punitive Damages From Mormon Church

[dzheremi]

There is a right way to criticize and there is a wrong way to criticize. Is it not the same in your church and for your church leaders?

Yes, but that is not what the elder said. He said "It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." That's a long way from "There's a right way to criticize and there is wrong way to criticize."

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, but that is not what the elder said. He said "It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." That's a long way from "There's a right way to criticize and there is wrong way to criticize."

In this day and in this age, there is a proper way to criticize our leaders. Even if the criticism is true, there is a wrong way to go about criticizing.

This is a different day and age, we have more information at our fingertips and therefore the leaders expect some criticism, but the better situation is to not criticize because it is a slippery slope from criticizing to apostasy.

 

[Peter1000]

dsheremi says:

I am glad that he said that, then. It is good to have evidence of Mormon leaders teaching against the example of Christ, so that it can't then later be denied.

And that dear dzheremi is the only thing you are interested in is catching our leaders somehow going against Jesus. Well you think you have done it, I am sure you are proud as punch of yourself, and now your day is complete. Glad we could make you so happy.

 

[dzheremi]

it is a slippery slope from criticizing to apostasy.

Only if you make it so by equating the two.

However, there are situations in which criticism is very much deserved and needed to preserve the Church from being dragged into error. Had no one stood up to Arius the presbyter in Alexandria, his sickness would've spread even further unchecked. The same could be said even more so to the error of Nestorius, as he managed to be elevated to the patriarchate of Constantinople before being deposed at Ephesus in 431.

To put it in terms that Mormons will hopefully be more conciliatory towards, when the leaders are themselves 'in apostasy', is it not the duty of all the faithful to say so openly? What else do you guys say JS did by laying such a charge on all the churches, supposedly with godly sanction?

 

[dzheremi]

dsheremi says:


And that dear dzheremi is the only thing you are interested in is catching our leaders somehow going against Jesus. Well you think you have done it, I am sure you are proud as punch of yourself, and now your day is complete. Glad we could make you so happy.

It doesn't make me happy at all, in fact (it is false teaching, which I would imagine makes everyone who cares for Mormon souls very unhappy). I am glad, however, that it exists, because it cannot therefore be denied.

 

[Peter1000]

Only if you make it so by equating the two.

However, there are situations in which criticism is very much deserved and needed to preserve the Church from being dragged into error. Had no one stood up to Arius the presbyter in Alexandria, his sickness would've spread even further unchecked. The same could be said even more so to the error of Nestorius, as he managed to be elevated to the patriarchate of Constantinople before being deposed at Ephesus in 431.

To put it in terms that Mormons will hopefully be more conciliatory towards, when the leaders are themselves 'in apostasy', is it not the duty of all the faithful to say so openly? What else do you guys say JS did by laying such a charge on all the churches, supposedly with godly sanction?

We have been taught that the Lord will never allow our leaders to lead us down the wrong path. That is why the succession process was established the way it was. It allows the Lord to be the decision-maker as to who advances and who does not.

On occasion, men in leadership positions do not do what the Lord wants, and have to be replaced. It is a human factor that the Lord has to deal with. But in our church, the best always come to the top and lead the church in the way that the Lord is pleased with.

 

[Peter1000]

It doesn't make me happy at all, in fact (it is false teaching, which I would imagine makes everyone who cares for Mormon souls very unhappy). I am glad, however, that it exists, because it cannot therefore be denied.

Don't be too concerned, we are happy with our leaders at the present time.

 

[BigDaddy4]

On occasion, men in leadership positions do not do what the Lord wants, and have to be replaced. It is a human factor that the Lord has to deal with. But in our church, the best always come to the top and lead the church in the way that the Lord is pleased with.

Sounds like the Lord wasn't too pleased with JS and replaced him.

 

[He is the way]

Sounds like the Lord wasn't too pleased with JS and replaced him.

Every one gets replaced, but for different reasons. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

 

[dzheremi]

Every one gets replaced, but for different reasons. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

True prophets do not try to sell what they have been given by God for money, as JS' failed 'revelation' concerning the selling of the copyright of the BOM in Canada shows.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Or attempt to run for president of their country, or open an illegal bank, or create false currency with their likeness, or ...

 

[He is the way]

True prophets do not try to sell what they have been given by God for money, as JS' failed 'revelation' concerning the selling of the copyright of the BOM in Canada shows.

It was not a failed revelation. There were conditions attached to the revelation. Revelations are conditional. Consider this revelation:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 20:1)

1 IN those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

However Hezekiah lived another fifteen years. This proves my point that revelations are indeed conditional. This was the condition:

I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell a copyright through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation &{◊\or} th{er\eir} salvation.

 

[He is the way]

Or attempt to run for president of their country, or open an illegal bank, or create false currency with their likeness, or ...

The Kirtland Safety Society was indeed a black time in the church's history. So was the time when Jesus instituted the sacrament. Many people left the church at those times. It was a stumbling block for the saints. However, many still remained true. Obviously the Kirtland Safety Society was not the way to solve the church's financial problems.

 

[dzheremi]

It was not a failed revelation. There were conditions attached to the revelation. Revelations are conditional. Consider this revelation:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 20:1)

1 IN those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

However Hezekiah lived another fifteen years. This proves my point that revelations are indeed conditional. This was the condition:

I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell a copyright through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation &{◊\or} th{er\eir} salvation.

Apparently you missed the entire first clause of the post you are quoting, about true prophets not attempting to sell God's revelation(s). The fact that the revelation didn't come to pass isn't the point, though it is another nail in the Mormon coffin.

And besides, when Hezekiah heard those words, he wept bitterly and prayed to the Lord, telling Him that he had done all that was good in His eyes. So the Lord heard Hezekiah's prayer and extended His life. Is there really any parallel to this in the failed sale of the BOM copyright in Canada? I wouldn't think so, as it is not about JS' life or any of the travelers who attempted to do the actual sale's lives. It is about a commercial transaction, and is written in such a way as to allow it to fail and JS and Co to still save face. Is this the case with the revelation to Hezekiah through Isaiah?

Verses 4-6 don't make it out to be that way. For one thing, God doesn't even allow enough time for anything to have already transpired before He gives a new message to Isaiah:

4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”'

So whether the original message was conditional or not doesn't really matter, because Isaiah doesn't even have a chance to leave before He's told to go back and tell the king something else. So there couldn't have been an 'after the fact' rationalization as there is in the JS' failed revelation. It was instead essentially a warning "Get yourself together, or you're on your way out", and King Hezekiah did the right thing by responding to it immediately. It's not really comparable to the BOM in Canada situation then, is it? It's not like JS gave the revelation to the Canadians so that they may react to it (or if he did it's not clear that he did so; I'm getting my information on this matter from this Mormon apologetic website, which does not mention that), which is pretty weird when you consider that in the Bible, God's command is at least aimed at the people who need to hear and respond to it, and yet that does not seem to be the case here.

In fact, now that I think about it, why does God give this revelation to JS in the first place? He's not even going on the trip (which, oddly, is one of the criticisms the page gives of the people who brought it up later to cast doubt upon JS -- "so and so wasn't even there"; neither was JS -- does that mean his own conveying of the 'revelation' is therefore not to be trusted?). The revelation as you can read it at the link mentions Oliver Cowderey, Joseph Knight, Hyram Pagee, and Josaiah Stowel. Is God unable to speak to anybody unless he clears it with/through JS first? Hmmm.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The Kirtland Safety Society was indeed a black time in the church's history. So was the time when Jesus instituted the sacrament. Many people left the church at those times. It was a stumbling block for the saints. However, many still remained true. Obviously the Kirtland Safety Society was not the way to solve the church's financial problems.

And just as obvious, the leader of these shenanigans, JS, was not a prophet of God.

 

[He is the way]

Apparently you missed the entire first clause of the post you are quoting, about true prophets not attempting to sell God's revelation(s). The fact that the revelation didn't come to pass isn't the point, though it is another nail in the Mormon coffin.

And besides, when Hezekiah heard those words, he wept bitterly and prayed to the Lord, telling Him that he had done all that was good in His eyes. So the Lord heard Hezekiah's prayer and extended His life. Is there really any parallel to this in the failed sale of the BOM copyright in Canada? I wouldn't think so, as it is not about JS' life or any of the travelers who attempted to do the actual sale's lives. It is about a commercial transaction, and is written in such a way as to allow it to fail and JS and Co to still save face. Is this the case with the revelation to Hezekiah through Isaiah?

Verses 4-6 don't make it out to be that way. For one thing, God doesn't even allow enough time for anything to have already transpired before He gives a new message to Isaiah:

4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”'

So whether the original message was conditional or not doesn't really matter, because Isaiah doesn't even have a chance to leave before He's told to go back and tell the king something else. So there couldn't have been an 'after the fact' rationalization as there is in the JS' failed revelation. It was instead essentially a warning "Get yourself together, or you're on your way out", and King Hezekiah did the right thing by responding to it immediately. It's not really comparable to the BOM in Canada situation then, is it? It's not like JS gave the revelation to the Canadians so that they may react to it (or if he did it's not clear that he did so; I'm getting my information on this matter from this Mormon apologetic website, which does not mention that), which is pretty weird when you consider that in the Bible, God's command is at least aimed at the people who need to hear and respond to it, and yet that does not seem to be the case here.

In fact, now that I think about it, why does God give this revelation to JS in the first place? He's not even going on the trip (which, oddly, is one of the criticisms the page gives of the people who brought it up later to cast doubt upon JS -- "so and so wasn't even there"; neither was JS -- does that mean his own conveying of the 'revelation' is therefore not to be trusted?). The revelation as you can read it at the link mentions Oliver Cowderey, Joseph Knight, Hyram Pagee, and Josaiah Stowel. Is God unable to speak to anybody unless he clears it with/through JS first? Hmmm.

You said "about true prophets not attempting to sell God's revelation(s)" Selling a copyright is not the same thing as selling revelations.

You said: "The fact that the revelation didn't come to pass isn't the point, though it is another nail in the Mormon coffin."

The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is far from being dead. I know all about the failed revelation of Isaiah. All revelation is conditional as was the revelation given to Joseph Smith. As I have shown that revelation had it's conditions and the conditions were not met.

 

[Peter1000]

Sounds like the Lord wasn't too pleased with JS and replaced him.

What sounds like the Lord..... Do you have some document or anything to back up your statement?

 

[dzheremi]

You said "about true prophets not attempting to sell God's revelation(s)" Selling a copyright is not the same thing as selling revelations.

The copyright was the BOM, and the BOM is what, according to Mormonism...?

The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is far from being dead.

I dunno...with all the dead people you posthumously baptize into it, it seems like it's probably more dead than alive.

 

[Ironhold]

Or attempt to run for president of their country, or open an illegal bank, or create false currency with their likeness, or ...

Joseph had repeatedly appealed to local, state, and federal officials for relief against the often-violent persecution that the church had gone up against over the last 15+ years, only to be broadly denied on pretty much each and every occasion. There's one infamous tale wherein he allegedly appealed right to the President at the time, only to be told that to help the church would be to lose the vote of Missouri.

For all intents and purposes, Joseph believed that the only way to ensure the physical protection of the membership was to run for President, as even if he didn't win he'd at least bring some attention to what was going on.

Third-party apologetics website Black LDS . org has a copy of his political platform if anyone wishes to read it:

Presidential Platform - Blacklds.org

Much of what he proposed was progressive for its day, and some of it (like his plans for prison reform) is still progressive today.

 

[He is the way]

The copyright was the BOM, and the BOM is what, according to Mormonism...?



I dunno...with all the dead people you posthumously baptize into it, it seems like it's probably more dead than alive.

However the dead are still alive. God is the God of the living:

(New Testament | John 11:25 - 26)

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?


The Book of Mormon is not a copyright:

cop·y·right
/ˈkäpēˌrīt/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
   "he issued a writ for breach of copyright" From: https://www.google.com/search?q=cop.....69i57j0l7.9999j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8