Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ

LDS.org ^ | Dennis B. Neuenschwander

[Paragon Defender]

Excellent list of anti-Mormon propaganda full of misleadings, half-truths and falsehoods. I am sure the anti-Mormon gang are way proud!

[Tennessee Nana]

Mind hopping way back upthread and check what you had originally said about a group being ridiculed unless they had a caucus ???

and why I answered you as I did ???

No ???

O....K

[Paragon Defender]

You really should get your info from more than just anti-Mormon propagandists. You will be much better for it.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

The George Clooney look!
The George W Bush look!
The Alec Balwin look!

The man’s a chamelion I tell you! A chemelion!

Waiting for the white and delightsom Obama look!

Now, how will they make him look like Sarah Palin?

[Utah Binger]

Caucus threads are not missionary outreaches; they are closed threads for people of like mind to discuss their beliefs amongst themselves, without being ridiculed. So when the Catholics here want to discuss some bizarre aspect of their religion, like eating Christ’s body and worrying about dropping crumbs on the floor, they can do so without others making fun of them. And when Presbyterians want to discuss their strange opinions on God choosing everybody, and all of us being predestined one way or another, they can do so without the free-will’ers laughing at them. And so on. We all have our particular denominational beliefs, and might well find other beliefs to be bizarre or strange or even blasphemous. But this is a primarily political forum, where we have a common goal of pushing the political conservative movement. So to the degree we have religious discussions at all, it’s a sidebar to what is advertised as the primary goal of the forum, something that seems to meet the needs of some members for discussing their own peculiar faiths while still being part of the larger whole. Given the Caucus rules, it would be impossible for your to “battle with the likes” of a relgious group posting caucus threads — no battles are allowed.

I didn't ask you my friend. Seems to me JR made it clear as to why this is not a Mormon caucus thread. Possibly you were not paying attention.

[Utah Binger]

Holy cow. I drive for four hours to SLC and the thread explodes. Cock-eyed Caucus! LOL

[Tennessee Nana]

DU: BTW, I am a descendant of Abraham with the genealogy to prove it. [Delphi user]

- - - - - -
Reaganaut: Oh guys. Get a load of THIS claim. ROFLMAO
________________________________________

This junk was one of the things that attracted me to these threads...

I read someones outrageous claim that they were descended from one of the tribes and named it and could prove it...

I thought it was a joke and poo haaqed the comment..

I got back some curses and threats etc...

How dare I say it was impossible to know etc...

WOW

that got my attention...

No amount of explaining that even the Jews didnt know who they were helped...

I was food for the chopper...

Loony toons religion...

[SkyPilot]

You really should get your info from more than just anti-Mormon propagandists.

Oh?

Gee, thanks Joseph Goebbels....errr...Paragon Defender.

What do you know about me? What books have I read? Where was a born. Am I ex-Mormon, or not? What is my undergraduate degree? My graduate degree? Have I read Doctrine and Covenants cover to cover? What about the Bible?

You don't know anything about me....but I "get" my "info" from "anti-Mormon propagandists."

Really?

Well, I'll tell you this. I don't know much about you either. But, I do know that you posted an idiotic cartoon of a thread. If you do that here, don't expect cuddles and hugs. Nothing here on FR stands up if it isn't based on Truth and Reality.

Nothing.

You deserve this "blank" storm raining down on you right now.

[Elsie]

 

Since I can't easily hand you my copy of the LDS published King James Bible (which I take with me to church every Sunday), here is a link to Matthew Chapter 1.

And here is a comparison of Mark...

 

"But when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away, (for it was very great,) and two angels sitting thereon, clothed in long white garments; and they were affrighted.

"But the angels said unto them, Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified; he is risen; he is not here; behold the place where they laid him;

"And go your way, tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him as he said unto you.

"And they, entering into the sepulcher, saw the place where they laid Jesus" (JST Mark 16:3-6).

 

 

JST = the bastardized version (which does NOT even rate as SCRIPTURE in the MORMON library)  that the 'lord' commanded Joseph Smith to 'translate' from the KJV.

What does SCRIPTURE really say???

 

 

Mark 16:3-6 (King James Version)

 ³And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

 ⁴And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

 ⁵And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

 ⁶And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

 

Truth	Fiction
3And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?	"But when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away, (for it was very great,) and two angels sitting thereon, clothed in long white garments; and they were affrighted.
4And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.	"But the angels said unto them, Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified; he is risen; he is not here; behold the place where they laid him;
5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.	"And go your way, tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him as he said unto you.
6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.	"And they, entering into the sepulcher, saw the place where they laid Jesus"

[Tennessee Nana]

Ive seen them claim that Joey Smith is a direct descendant of the LORD Jesus Christ...

Just how blasphemeous does it get...

Is Dan Brown a mormon ???

hed make a good one...

[Godzilla]

Anyone who cares, Matthew 5:31-32 KJV has Jesus condemning Divorce and calling remarriage of the divorced adultery.
Now, Godzilla, you big prehistoric lizard, post a similar scripture where Jesus condemns polygamy as adultery. I double dog dare you!

Now du, it was explained quite clearly with all the other passages I cited in the synoptics. Clearly in Jesus' teaching, divorce is only valid in one condition. If other divorces are invalid (hint - they are still married in the eyes of God) in regards to marriage, then any second wife is an adulterous relationship because there is a pre-existing marriage.

Now try real hard du to apply some common sense. Jesus states if a monogamous marriage is in effect, any additonal marriages are 'adultery'. Not a hard concept to grasp - unless you like to grasp at straws. Thus from ALL the passages - marriage is one man to one woman (and vice versa), any more is adultery.

So in your opinion, Jesus is saying if a man gets a divorce and then remarries is the same as staying married and getting married again...

I know having to actually think can be hard for some. Jesus is saying there is only one valid justification for a divorce (ie breaking the marriage bond - see Mt 19:6). Absent that - in God's eyes they are still married. After all du(h) the definition of adultery is sex outside of the bonds of legal marriage. Polygamy by any other name.

You do know that a lot of people now days get divorced and remarried who would never think of just staying married and adding a wife, right? (Just checking)

The perverted sense of our society today is not God's standard now is it Du.

So, they and I disagree with you that there is no difference. I wold say that Jesus is saying, if you can't keep the first wife, you don'r deserve a second one. Hey, i know as long as we are adding to the Bible, maybe we should just say that Jesus thinks... Wait we're not supposed to add to the Bible are we... I just don't see the word polygamy in there, because it's not in there.

It is sooooo funny to watch you squirm and squiggle to get out of a jam du. What you or they 'believe' external to the scripture doesn't count for squat. But adding to the bible is just what mormons like to do anyway now isn't it.

So, were the Indians Breaking the Law when they had more than one Squaw? if so what law?

If they were under federal jurisdiction at the time - most likely, dependent upon the LAW and treaty with the tribes. But hey, we are not talking about lamanites here du - we are talking about an American citizen and THOSE laws he engraved into mormon doctrine that mormons were REQUIRED to follow the law of the land.

The city of Nauvoo was allowed by it's charter to supersede the laws of the state if it so desired. Nauvoo had no law against polygamy.

That is a myth and a false representation. The charter states quite clearly that no law may be established that violated the state or national consitution. Furthermore, if there WERE no law prohibiting polygamy in Nauvoo, why did smith get his temple undies in such a knot when his polygamy was exposed by the Expositor? Double facepalm on that interpretation Du.

There was no "law" for Joseph to break, he died before the Federal law was passed. You could argue that what he did was immoral, but appeals to the Bible have not worked out well for you in the past either.

Wrong again Du - he was also in voilation of state laws as well. Smith's polygamous marriages occurred in Illinois in the early 1840s. The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal. It reads:

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

And John Taylor, the third president of the church, claimed that he believed in keeping all the laws of the United States "except one"--i.e., "The law in relation to polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, page 317)

Getting tired of digging your self in deeper du?

When bring'em young moved the clan to Utah, it was still part of mexican territory - which outlawed polygamy at that time. When it became a US territory, US common laws in 1850 also outlawed polygamy.

DU, even church publications, doctrines and manuals admit that polygamy was illegal.

The Book of Commandments contained the following statement: "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the CRIME of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (Section C1, 251)(see also History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247). This section was in every single edition until 1876, when the D & C first included section 132 justifying plural marriage

"The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once." (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715, November 15, 1844.)

You've said you are still 'learning' - now is another time to admit you still have a lot of learning to go du.

[DelphiUser]

Delph We have one God

B.S. The LDS have THREE ‘gods’ who are one only in purpose (with two physical bodies).

Depends on your definition of oneness now doesn't it. The Trinity looks pretty silly to most Buddhists I talked to, any who had had it explained to them by an "Orthodox Christian" wold start out by asking questions about that. You're just used to that particular man made Dogma from 325 AD.

In addition, their leaders have taught that there are millions of gods out there and that they can become Gods themselves.

Actually, you spend far more time on that on FR than I ever have in church, but if you believe Man can be deified, as the Bible teaches, then you have to accept that there are gods besides God our Father, we just don't worship them or have anything to do with them.

So to say that you believe in only ONE God is intentionally misleading. Maybe only one God ‘for this world’, or only one God in purpose, but not as the Bible teaches it.

It is exactly as the Bible teaches it. Try reading John 17 first read the part I've marked, Jesus himself draws a simile between his and God's oneness adn the oneness the disciples are supposed to have, then go back and read the whole chapter to make sure i'm not taking it out of context. You'll never read the Bible the same way again once you understand God the Father and Jesus Christ better.

And the only ‘salvation’ by grace is resurrection. Exaltation (Heaven to Christians) REQUIRES WORKS. Works to the LDS are required not just a sign of faith. For Christians, works are what we do when we have already been saved, not to get there, but for the LDS they are needed (including secret handshakes) to get back to God. That is not salvation by grace at all.

Just for the record, believing in Christ is a work. You literally have no knowledge of our actual beliefs, try reading James 2:14-26 what we believe is Biblical, true gospel.

Want sources/quotes Delph? I can provide them.

Thanks, I've seen them, have you sen what I am quoting? Afraid to look? If you don't want to read from LDS.org, fine, get a KJV bible and look it up, it's the same.

Delph

[Colofornian]

Hard to believe these people could imagine this of Christ when His Crucifixtion and Resurrection was all about SAVING the life of those who trust in His finished work. ...Which then it is easy to assume they do not worship the same Christ of Christinaity by any means.....but one who was created and promoted by Joseph Smith... who himself was an occultist.

I was in a non-Mormon store today...NOT looking for anything Mormon, let alone all things Mormon.

And here was the title of the 32-page hardbound book for pre-school/primary-aged kids I came across: My First Book of Mormon Stories -- retold by Deanna Draper Buck, 1998, published by the Mormon church-owned Deseret Book Company.

Now...a 32-page book w/2-4 graphs in it (highly illustrated) is easy to quickly peruse:
* 86 paragraphs
* 2 of which were devoted to the post-crucifixion events -- what I described in DETAIL in post #454!!!

ALL: Now, WHAT do you think that these two graphs --
--2.3% of this book's written content...
--& 3.2% of the 31 pages of actual Book of Mormon content coverage...
...Was devoted to?
(Keep in mind the target readership for this book is the youngest of Mormons & Mormon attempted proselytes!)

Well, I took the opportunity to write those graphs down word-for-word!

From page 24 [note: no actual page numbers in the book, but was from the 24th page devoted to BoM content]:

"When Jesus died there were terrible storms and earthquakes in the Promised Land."
"It was totally dark for three days. Houses and cities were destroyed, and the people were frightened. Many of them died."

ALL: Does that sound like the Bible? There's no three days of darkness in the Bible...
No terrible storms...
Probably one earthquake at most...
And no cities were destroyed!
[If you want the "lowdown" for the distinctions of the Book of Mormon jesus vs. the Biblical Jesus, see post #454.]

Meanwhile, what are Mormon leaders teaching the most vulnerable about Christ and His crucifixion & death? What kind of a wrathful, vengeful Christ & God the Father are they teaching them?

Is it any wonder Mormons don't celebrate Easter as a church body unless it falls on a Sabbath Day? Is it any wonder Mormons don't recognize Good Friday as a church body?

Their "jesus" goes out & destroys city & city upon his death, either covering them with dirt or drowning them! One author estimated the number of villages and concluded the Mormon jesus killed 70,000-90,000 upon his death!

Is that the "good news" of the gospel, Mormon style? (Indeed; alas it is)

[Oh, & by the way...on the 22nd page of that same book...when it comes to telling the story of the Christ child, is there any mention of Bethlehem? Nope. The Mormon church stays true to Smith's version in Alma 7:10 in the Book of Mormon...the line in the book reads: "...in the land of Jerusalem."]

Mormons have to distort & twist almost anything Christian it touches...even the Christmas carol, "O Little Town of Bethlehem" isn't safe in their hands!

[Godzilla]

I promise people they can have the same answer as mine if they will just follow the steps, I teach people to pray.

No there isn't du - what you 'teach' is a placebo effect along with reinforcement of behavior - common with controlling cults.

Anti's collectively and you two specifically have taught people not to pray but to rely on your analysis.

Du you are now misrepresenting what I have specifically stated in the past - but then that is par for the course when the exchange is going poorly for you.

[Tennessee Nana]

Good on ya !!!

[TiaS]

Guess that entry needs clarification. The original two visitors who made an appointment to call again were not the pair who returned. The second meeting involved the original elder along with the big, strange guy, who said very little and whose presence, as well as, the absence of one original elder, was never explained to me. I believed it to be a bait and switch of some kind. The uninvited guy was large, not very neat, and strange in his body language. I would not have invited him into my home. By the way, it was the elder who brought him and didn’t explain, that made the phone call comment about my journal and my bed.

[Paragon Defender]

You don’t know anything about me....but I “get” my “info” from “anti-Mormon propagandists.”

---

But you parrot their propaganda so well. And I see you add a little of your own. How quaint.

[Tennessee Nana]

Normie: We believe that Jesus has placed His authority in the Church by delegating the keys of the kingdom to His earthly servants — this was the same authority the Christ gave to Peter in the ancient Church.
___________________________________________

Nana: Do the same “we” also “believe” that women are as entitled to be “delegated the keys” as men ???

Normie: As it the early days of the Church, the apostles are males.
__________________________________________________

Thats not what I asked Norm...

meanwhile, you really need to read the Christian Bible...