Josh Powell leaving Mormonism

Josh Powell is apparently shopping around for a new church. On the website Susanpowell.org, which is widely believed to be written by Josh and his father, Steven Powell, there was this paragraph:

“Finding trustworthy spiritual support is more critical now than ever, since according to the media, members of the Mormon community had been pressuring Susan to divorce Josh on the basis of his beliefs. Josh and his family have recently enjoyed the fellowship of religious communities that share his and Susan's pro-family values. They have been investigating Christianity as an alternative to Mormonism. Vibrant faith communities in the local area have been very supportive and have been helping Josh and his family through the turmoil.” (Emphasis added)

But Kiirsi Hellewell, a close friend of Susan Cox Powell and a member of the same LDS Ward in West Valley, disputes the claim of a conspiracy to split up Josh and Susan. She said, “Everyone was extremely supportive. Everyone was very friendly to Josh. After Susan disappeared, everyone gave him the benefit of the doubt, helped him move, and invited him over for dinner. We did everything we could to help him.”

Friends of Susan cannot believe that Josh could abandon his faith over something the “media” might have said. It is equally unbelievable to the family of Susan Cox Powell.

“Susan would be heartbroken. He is making decisions that are contrary to her wishes. She was the one who took the lead in matters of faith. We see this as another attempt by Josh to close the door on Susan and forget all about her.”

Hellewell was even more blunt, “Every decision he’s made since she disappeared has been against what she would want.”

This weekend marks 6 months since Susan Cox Powell disappeared from her home in West Valley City, Utah. Josh Powell remains the only person of interest in the ongoing police investigation.

When ‘outer darkness’ gets heaters.

Could be sooner than you think, Reaggy...Joseph Smith indicated he and his followers would dwell in "everlasting burnings" (his words, not mine).

I think in the place opposite of heaven, where we won't need light 'cause God will be that light, you won't need "heaters" when people and demons are burning.

There's few...
...pains worse than the immediate and long-term aftermaths of horrific burns;
...sins that provoked God more than idolatry -- putting another god in in place of God, or alongside God. Even if Mormons say they don't do the former, well, there's a reason they are called "latter"-day 'ain'ts.

I would say of all the teachings that was most horrific about what Smith taught, the following, which he "broke out" late in his life...was the topper...1844:
"...you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one...from exaltation to exaltation, until you...are able to dwell... (pp. 346-347)

Well, "until you...are able to dwell" where?
WHERE were the "ghost-lights" -- the demon-lights of Smith telling him where he & his followers would dwell???
The answer is right there on p. 347 of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
"until you...are able to dwell in everlasting burnings."
Whoaaa.

Smith must have felt the guilt gnawing at him from no assurance of forgiveness of sins; but he wouldn't let go of his "everlasting burnings" teaching late in life: "Those who have done wrong always have that wrong gnawing them. Immortality dwells in everlasting burnings." (ToPJS, p. 367)

These spirits craving their own "immortality" as false gods wouldn't let go of Smith...
...and actually occasionally told him the truth...
...as they did about "everlasting burnings"...
...They had the last laugh at Smith's -- and his followers' -- expense.

Make no mistake, Mormons. There's a fiery everlasting pain that accompanies outer darkness. The longevity words in the Book of Mormon used to describe heaven ("everlasting," "eternal") are also used to describe hell in the Book of Mormon. However long heaven; the BoM characters concluded "ditto" about hell.

And what did Jesus say in the book of Matthew alone?
Matthew 3:10: The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
Matthew 3:12: His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Matthew 5:22: But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 7:19: Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Matthew 13:40: "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
Matthew 18:8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
Matthew 25:41: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

So Jesus described it as "eternal fire"...Smith described his future destination, along with his followers, as "everlasting burnings"...
There was with Smith a teeny-tiny tidbit of "Truth in advertising" -- I'm sure the Divine Regulation Committee of Cultic Oversight demanded of the demons that their labeled fine print contain at least a dosage of truth.

The LDS church would be the one and only restaurant serving the entire Italian food menu available today. You may choose to patronize a restaurant that only serves spaghetti or pizza etc.

Well, nice "try" PD. Maybe a "C" for effort (but an "F" on execution).

You see, what's consistent 'bout Lds apologists/some leaders...
...as they try to "soft pedal" the true Mormon position on those outside their faith...
...is they try to hint that the real problem with these other sects is that they're just incomplete or function as a piecemeal operation. (Hence, PD's attempt to basically assign to the Christian church the role of only "piecemeal" authentic cuisine, at best)

The soft-pedalers try to communicate that we're not so horrid as other Lds leaders have made us out to be; that...
...we simply lack some authenticity;
...we simply lack all authority;
...they're the only ones that who have the "full restoration" of the Original Restaurant;
...we're accused -- well, at least our spiritual forefathers are so accused -- of finegling away "many plain and precious things" out of the "Master Recipe Book"...

But to stay with this Italian restaurant description, what's wrong with this picture? Well, I'll just pick out one authoritative "scripture" for Mr. PD and his apologists/leaders to match the above against...Joseph Smith, History vv. 18-19...cited by Elsie in post #33...only written out to stay with this Italian theme...words in italic match Mormon "scripture":

My object in going to inquire of the don was to know which of all the restaurant chains was right, that I might know which to dine therein. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the don and his son who stood above me in the light, which of all the restaurant chains was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should eat at.

19 I was answered that I must eat at none of them, for they were all wrong; and the don who addressed me said that ALL these competing restaurants' recipes were putrid [literal word meaning of "abomination"] in his sight; that those cooks were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their menus, but their appetites are far from me, they teach for recipes the commercialization of men, having a form of Italian food, but they deny the saucy power thereof.”

OK, now if this was true...if the don leading PD in his quest for authentic Italian cuisine said the above...that "ALL these competing restaurants' recipes were an abomination in his sight..." pray tell, PD...How do you possibly then arrive at some made-up Mormon notion that the spaghetti or pizza served up by other restaurants is likewise authentic?

You can't have it both ways, PD!
You can't have your restaurant founder claiming 100% of the recipes are putrid (the literal meaning of the word "abomination") @ all other competing restaurants...
...while claiming that it's "OK" if diners want to "patronize" the scarfing of putrid "spaghetti" and "pizza."
(Any true chef who concluded that it's "OK" for diners to eat putrid food is no true chef at all!)

PD, your founder said, and was enshrined as "scripture" that 100% of the "recipes" were "putrid" -- and consisted of the "doctrines" of mere wannabe chefs -- "less than divine."

So, stop the soft-pedaling because either you don't want to sound so harsh, or you want to partially shield your leaders from being perceived that way.

All it does is highlight your wanting to have it both ways.

It is easier to dismiss the true Christian message that way as well as being a common cult tactic - no salvation outside the select group.

Exactly.

I mean if Smith had billed himself as a reformer, well, there's always been reformers and the need for them in the Christian church. But he billed himself as a restorationist.

And if the church didn't need to be built from scratch from the ground up, then Smith was irrelevant. No need existed for him, if the true church was still the true church.

So, Smith decided to play Clue. He wanted to place...
...the Rev. Green (earlier British of Clue character is called Rev. Green, not Mr. Green)...
...in the graveyard...
...with a shovel.

But what a massive job it was. Burying world-wide Christianity with just a mere shovel?
After Christ had already promised the church would NOT be prevailed upon? [Mt. 16:18]
After St. Paul promised the church would give glory to God throughout all ages, forever & ever? [Eph. 3:21]
After the Holy Spirit ensured St. Paul that only SOME would leave the faith -- not all? [1 Tim. 4:1]

So, either God needed a 14 yo boy because He allowed His Son's church to go to pot for 1700+ years...and Jesus "failed" while the 14 yo boy succeeded...
...or Smith was wrong...
...and if he was wrong on any of these points above -- like just even Eph. 3:21 -- he was wrong on everything else...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.