Posted on 12/12/2007 6:04:34 AM PST by libstripper
“We rely on “what Jesus said or did”, not what we imagine He might do.”
“So, no extraBiblical stuff.”
I’ll post as I, not you, see fit, thank you very much. If you don’t like it, you are free to move on down the road.
Your assumption is that since Smith was murdered the prophecy became moot. Using deductive reasoning skills this would assume 1) God is not smart enough (or shall be say omniscient enough) to have known that Smith would be murdered when he 'supposedly' gave this information to Smith or 2) Being all-knowing and omniscient he knew Smith was going to be murdered and lied to Smith so that Smith would think otherwise and then issued all of those unfulfilled prophecies. Now again using any College level 101 Logic course you are left with 1) God is dumb or 2) God is a liar.
In any case something very much less than God. Or there is a 3rd choice which is the one I choose and that is Smith was a false prophet and you have to be completely brainwashed not to see this. However on a positive note this convoluted thinking certainly does prove the Mormon God is not the God of the Bible as the God of the Bible IS all-knowing, omniscient, omnipresent and mighty enough to have known EXACTLY how Smith would meet his end.
I'll remember this comment on "mormon bashing" for merely repeating the words of the LDS itself the next time a Mormon missionary stands at my door informing me what an Apostate I am and they are the only true church.
I assume the apostate bashing by mormons is fine and dandy? I also assume the cover-up as to what you really believe is okay also, just so long as no one bothers to point out the fact that you are covering up your own doctrine???? Hmmm sounds rather like the followers of Mohammed but I digress.
Right on! Giuliani, Huckabee, AND Romney all carry too much baggage to ever defeat any of the Democrats. The only chance we have is Hunter or Tancredo.
Considering you tossed that one off fairly quickly and without effort, what about the one on Murder?
What are you blathering about? I explained it in detail and you don’t believe it... So what?..... This is a political forum. Go beat up a missionary instead. They can handle it. There are extensive anti-mormon sites where you can strut your stuff. I thought we could keep the bashing to a site where the world class bashers can compete. I don’t believe in the Nicene Creed as I have told you before. Apparently you don’t read. You believe it. I don’t. We disagree. What part of we disagree don’t you get.??? I admit you well steeped in anti-mormon thought, you are not a lone ranger.
The only detail you've explained is that you can't handle what the LDS themselves have written. Sorry not my problem. And huh no missionaries can't handle it....whenever I show them the false prophecies of Joseph Smith they get tongue tied and immediately leave. After of course calling me an evil Apostate. Believe me I know. Since you are calling me a mormon basher for merely showing you your church's own doctrine in their own writings guess I'll call you an Apostate basher. :) And no I'm not steeped in anti-mormon thought, I'm steeped in the writings of mormons themselves thank you. That's the great thing about the LDS, you can prove their error by using their own literature!
As far as this being a political forum blame Mitt Romney. He should never have attempted to deceive the population by trying to cover up his own church's doctrine. Better get your seat belt fastened! If Mitt wins the nomination Hillary has just begun to dig up this topic!!
I know it's a surprise to many Christians to encounter folks who reject the Nicene Creed or simply ignore it as relevant to Christianity.
Mormons supposedly reject it as having meaning in Christian worship although it's probably more like they ignore it.
Jews ignore it too. Moslems have several standard sermons repeated several times a year in mosques throughout the world where the Imam (or teacher) argues with the Nicene Creed like there's no tomorrow.
You omit the choice that God has allowed us free will and that Joseph Smith was foully murdered by mainstreamers who had that free will.
Did you ever consider that?
What does free will have to do with a man claiming to speak in the Name of the Lord and what he spoke not happening???? Unless its the free will of said man to deceive people so that he may create a new and false religious system and end up being worshipped as a god -- which is what happened. As to being 'foully murdered by mainstreamers' don't make me bring up all the documentation of Brigham Young's murder of 'mainstreamers' in a wagon train going west collectively known as "The Mountain Meadows Massacre."
There is NO documentation other than more bloviating that Brigham Young ever killed anyone and you should know that. Can’t you do anything but bloviate? Give it up, you aren’t very good at it!
“Mitt himself made this an issue by trying to equate the Mormon Christ with the traditional Christ which all mormons (including you) have rejected. I believe that’s the exact point where it becomes a charade. And that is an insult to mainstream Christians whether you like it or not, and that is where Mitt Romney made his campaign an issue of theology. Big mistake.”
Yes...with all this talk of Huckabee, people are forgetting that Mitt just brought religion into the debate by making that speech using christian-sounding words in an attempt to gain christian votes.
It would have been better if he had avoided the entire subject, and then we probably would not have seen this Huckabee affair unfold.
You had to do that didn't you? You had to make me bring this up (sigh). Maybe you should watch the movie I believe titled "September Dawn".
"A California-bound wagon train of about 140 Arkansas emigrants led by John Baker and Alexander Fancher camped near the present-day southwestern Utah town of Enterprise in September 1857. Fears that the U.S. Army was preparing to forcefully remove Brigham Young as Utah territorial governor and impose martial law were at their height. Spurred by inflammatory sermons of LDS leaders, a siege mentality focused Mormon resentment on the 'gentile' wagon train.
Early on Sept. 7, a group of American Indians and local Mormon 'Indian missionaries' attacked the encircled wagon train without warning. ... With their ammunition, food and water almost gone, the emigrants were persuaded by Mormon officials on the afternoon of Sept. 11 to surrender their arms in exchange for a safe escort past the Indians to Cedar City. ... On a pre-arranged command, the rescuers turned upon the emigrants, joined by Indians who had been lying in wait. Estimates of the death toll include 14 Arkansas men shot in the head, 12 women and 35 youngsters clubbed or knifed to death, with 17 children younger than age 8 surviving the double-cross.
Nine cowhands hired to drive cattle also were murdered, along with at least 35 other unknown victims. In all, 120 people, mostly women and children, were slain." (Salt Lake Tribune, March 14, 2000, p. A-4)
I am forced to conclude that you are woefully ignorant of many cover-ups of the Mormon Church. Here's a book suggestion (absolutely replete with documentation that you need) that will help you out on this subject:
Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Paperback) by historian Will Bagley available at Amazon.com - http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806136391/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197516542&sr=8-1.
Another one entitled The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks is also available - you can get the complete set! On the other hand if you are too brainwashed to pay money in the interest of truth there is always this website which discusses it absolutely free: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mmm_familysecrets.htm
That was not my subject. You asked me to address the Nicene Creed and I did.
Uh, no I didn’t. That was post #308 by Muayiwah.
You know what. Just go study your anti mormon stuff and give it a rest. I am sure with a little more study you can come back more invigorated with some fresh bash material. I really don’t spend my life on anti-mormon stuff and where they dig it up. I have a nice family and lots of friends. If I know something about your material I will be happy to respond. I was happy to respond to your charade charges with actual doctrine. Beyond that, I have six kids to raise.
That’s nice. I said evidence, not opinion.
Too bad Romney isn't capable of responding with actual doctrine instead of trying to cover up his actual doctrine and thus present himself as a mainstream Christian for votes -- THAT was the point here which went over your head.............
Gee, its nice to learn that historical research that has been published by a historian is not 'opinion'.
What, in that book, or books, do you deem as evidence specifically linking Brigham Young to ordering those murders?
I am neither an idolator nor a murderer. What about you?
And, since you don’t know me and cannot have any idea of what I have done nor what I believe, you should stop bearing false witness against me.
The testimony of an eyewitness. In this case Young's adopted son John D. Lee along with all the accompanying court documents at Lee's trial. Lee testified that on September 11, 1857 he and several Mormon militiamen approached the Fancher party under a white flag. Lee told them he had negotiated a truce and would conduct them to safety if they surrendered their stock and supplies to the Indians. They agreed, and Lee proceeded to separate the children, women and men. According to Lee’s own testimony and confession, as well as the testimony of survivors, they began walking toward Cedar City, the very young children in a wagon, the women and men walking in single file, each man with a Mormon militiaman by his side. A brief synopsis of these court records goes something like this, "As the women and children disappeared over a rise, the Mormons started shooting. When it was over, all the emigrants, but for 17 of the children deemed to young to remember the slaughter, were dead. The Mormons stripped the bodies of clothing and jewelry and left them lightly covered with leaves and dirt, which soon blew away leaving the bodies to be eaten by wildlife. They placed the surviving children with Mormon families, including those of the militiamen who had taken part in the killing. Two years later, after a US government investigation, the children were removed and reunited with other family members." As previously stated when I referred to Lee's trial, he was in fact the only man ever charged in the massacre. He was convicted and shot by firing squad at Mountain Meadows on March 23, 1877. The facts of this event cannot be challenged, indeed the Mormon Church don't deny it either, unless you want to challenge official court documents.
To be unbiased in my reporting, the Mormon Church has for years blamed this event on 'renegade' church members and deny that Young ever had anything to do with this event, but they don't deny the event happening. However this is in direct contradiction to the eye witness accounts as recorded in Lee's trial. In fact there are many historians and descendants of the victims, who hold that the preponderance of evidence shows that Brigham Young must, at the very least, have had foreknowledge of the attack and that his vitriolic speeches and sermons inflamed his followers.
Hope this helps. You of course can choose to believe the official position of the LDS that Young didn't have anything to do with it and that his son Lee lied at his trial. That is up to you. I, however, choose to take at face value the testimony of Lee along with his confession. This confession along with the eye witness testimony at the time clearly points to Young's involvement. You can always buy the books of course -- I believe all these court documents and testimonies are in there.
I only mentioned this as you posted something about 'mainstreamers' murdering Joseph Smith as if all 'mainstreamers' are bloodthirsty villains. This account proves of course there were some bloodthirsty Mormons in this time period as well which shouldn't be overlooked. And that's a fair assessment even IF you take the LDS position it was 'renegade' Mormons. The renegades were still Mormons.
So, you now admit the falsity of your statement and publicy admit that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Brigham Young actually ordered the murders, as you previously claimed. The implication is that you lied.
Still, the WWJD stuff is idolatrous even if you, personally, don't do it.
I admitted no such thing and you know it. Are you so deceived that you CANNOT ADMIT that court documents and the CONFESSION of an adopted son of Brigham Young counts as EVIDENCE?????? Since when in the history of these United States does COURT DOCUMENTS REGARDING A TRIAL AND THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES not count as EVIDENCE? You don't have any clue do you how absurd you sound???!?!???
You did not cite one shred of evidence that Brigham Young ORDERED the murders, as you originally stated. Perhaps you are so blind in your hatred that you cannot understand that evidence is something more than mere citations by some of your own ilk or your own biased opinion. You have NO evidence.
I admitted no such thing and you know it. Are you so deceived that you CANNOT ADMIT that court documents and the CONFESSION of an adopted son of Brigham Young counts as EVIDENCE?????? Since when in the history of these United States does COURT DOCUMENTS REGARDING A TRIAL AND THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES not count as EVIDENCE? You don't have any clue do you how absurd you sound???!?!???
It was not the mainstream who murder Joseph Smith, anymore than God fearing white Christians accepted the KKK.
Joseph was Murder by a mob that just happens to attend the MS church.
As far as MMM Brigham Young was always a hands on if what you are accusing him of he would have been there. Since Brigham Young never did anything like that in his history why are you trying to take the words of the disgruntle, who are mostly made up of anti’s be they atheist, homosexuals who were excommunicate, and others of a humanist bend!
It was not I who suggested this, it was Old Mountain Man - scroll up.
Since Brigham Young never did anything like that in his history why are you trying to take the words of the disgruntle
I can only assume here that you too have a problem with official court documents.......boy oh boy........
So teenagers wearing WWJD bracelets are idolatrous heretics? I am sure most of them believe it is simply a mnemonic to remind them to act humanely toward other people. However, if you wish to judge them and call them names, I cannot stop you.
I am saddened, however, since that kind of obsession with legalism can turn young people off the Christian faith. The basis of Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If teenagers use a mnemonic to remind them of the behavioral standards of that relationahip, I have no problem with it. Nor do I believe that Jesus, in His infinite love and mercy, has a problem with it either.
You are right. The RC Church considers the Eastern Orthodox explanation of the Nicene Creed heretical. I wonder which version one must accept in order to be a “Christian”.
Yup, that's the practice that Moses asserted that God prohibited when he handed down the Ten Commandments.
I have absolutely no doubt there are people who are upset with arguments from the Ten Commandments. They'd rather we just all get along together and forget about that stuff.
So that you should not worry about the eventual disposition of my immortal soul, I will tell you that I do not now nor have I ever had any item of clothing, jewelry nor other accoutrement with the letters “WWJD” on it.
Rest easy.
“It would have been better if he had avoided the entire subject, and then we probably would not have seen this Huckabee affair unfold.”
He COULDN’T avoid it. It’s been the basis for most of the attacks on him by the southern ‘holier-than-thou’ Evangelicals. IMHO you’d never see Catholics acting in such a self righteous manner.
"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin
You’ll be dismayed to learn that WWJD was started by a Congregational minister and is rarely used by Catholics. In fact, I just completed a search of the inventory of the ten largest online Catholic bookstores, and got no hits for WWJD.
With that, this conversation is at an end. With that last post you revealed yourself, and I will have nothing further to do with you.
Gee, OJ says he is innocent, it was in the civil trial. So, He is right? I think you give inordinate weight to things recorded in a court case. Clinton’s testimony is recorded in the Grand Jury, but we know he and she lie through their teeth. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder and the stature and truthfulness of the witness. The Lord has the only video tapes and you have apparently seen them with regard to the MMM. Is that right? It is not silly to suspect that people lie for various reasons. But, apparently people that hate mormons always tell the truth. Of course, no one was ever charged with the murders and Haun’s Mill or Carthage so we don’t even have their lies recorded. The preponderance of evidence is that BY did not order anyone murdered or he would have finished off the US Army in the mountains. He merely defeated them without killing or hurting any of them. It is true they got a bit hungry in the mountains after he chopped off their supplies.
Now please enlighten all of us why exactly someone who is about to face his maker would need to "LIE" in a confession just to protect BY??? Be honest - would YOU? I thought not, so thank you very much for proving this event with your babbling. I'll stand by my sources thank you very much along with the other historians based on the overwhelming evidence in this particular case to the contrary, and you can continue to wallow in your comfortable little world where fear is the motivator for never, ever, questioning anything the LDS ever in any way says or does. OH GOSH, heavens no - the LDS would NEVER EVER cover-up its questionable past from anybody would they? OH my no -- oh no --- its always the anti-mormons isn't it never the Church lying to YOU? tsk tsk tsk. Yeah anti-mormons are so evil we have the audacity to actually show you direct quotations complete with source citations that your own leaders have actually SAID. (This is done not bash but to present truth). But hey if you don't like the quotes and sources we post seems to me your problem isn't with us -- its with the LDS. So my dear if you don't like what you see -- why are you STILL LDS?
I give up. I'm rather reminded of a rabid jihadist faced with the truth of Mohammed and starts yelling death to the infidel for daring to question his prophet. So go ahead and sit in your comfy corner. And while you're there don't forget to put a blindfold over your eyes, cover your mouth with your hands, stick cotton in your ears and hum after me LA LA LA LA LA LA LA as loud as you can. Meanwhile I'll happily take comfort in the obvious reality that I've struck a nerve here and pray the real Lord of Heaven and Earth will open your eyes to truth.
Hmmm. Revealed what?
I don't think the main body of LDS in Utah has any more information regarding those times than the rest of us. Even the handful of Authorities who post here have expressed surprise that there was a COTFB in existence before Smith was born ~ and right there in that part of New York, and in Rhode Island, and so forth. Kind of changes the complexion of what little information anyone has about those days.
Too often Mormon bashing consists of little more than someone coming up with a little documented personal event involving someone in the hierarchy and then demanding the Authority provide more information or suffer the consequences of folks conjuring up evil plots and conspiracies.
Absent a time machine no one can fill in all the gaps in America's history of Westward movement before 1860. Sometimes it's simply "dark".
We weren't supposed to criticize her BS because, after all, this was ecumenical stuff.
“He COULDN’T avoid it. It’s been the basis for most of the attacks on him by the southern ‘holier-than-thou’ Evangelicals.”
JFK handled it without going into beliefs, and theology.
Mitt could have gone that route, but he didn’t.
Instead his speech was designed to sound like mormonism isn’t much different than christianity. Well, that isn’t entirely up front - there are huge differences.
Catholics are used to this type of an attack, but respond to them differently.
If Huck had said...”don’t catholics believe they are really eating the true body and blood of Christ at communion?”....the response from catholics would have been “yes, we do!”
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.