Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Please provide references that show the mob acted in “the name of their God.”
- Status
F
Fatboys
Guest
They feared for their life. And rightly so. You may not agree with their reasons, but the only way to protect what they believed was to keep it secret. But then they still had the right to live their religion, right? Look this is way to negative of a place to even have a discussion. I thought that there would be some respect.
F
Fatboys
Guest
I can tell you are very irritated from the things you post. And I can tell from the way you conduct your questions that you are angry with the Mormon church. OkayFirst of all, I suggest you do not presume to tell me I “have so much anger”. Who do you think you are talking to? You do not know me, or anything about me, so I would tread very lightly.
Where have I attacked your beliefs? Show me one. I have merely stated facts, and by the way, I have provided references (which you have failed to do on more than one occasion). In essence, please keep your false accusations to yourself, and everything will be fine.
Show us one Catholic doctrine that is not biblical. You have made a claim, back it up. You have gotten off easy with making claims and statements that you have not backed up.
I will not let this one go. If you do not provide something to back up your statements, I will make sure the mods find about it.
We have all seen the misquoted, mistranslated, misrepresented and misunderstood cards played over the years.
WE all await your response.
First question. You believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. Unbiblical. Celibacy for priests, Unbiblical. Transubstantuation unbiblical. The understanding of the character of God as contained in the Nicene Creed is unbiblical. Original Sin unbiblical. Succession of the Pope unbiblical. Nuns unbiblical. These are the ones just off the top of my head. If I really spent more time I could come up with more. Such as the banning of polygamy. Unbiblical… Since your church believes that God has revealed all he is going to reveal to man these unbiblical topics are more traditions lived by the church.
F
Fatboys
Guest
Sure you love rumors. And there were ex mormons in the crowd which was part of the reason the mobs were so blood thirsty. Ever been on a ex catholic website and seen the trashing the church gets from those who can not leave alone. Mormons do not participate in such discussions on their websites unless they are attacked by catholics. Most of the anti mormon literature you have read are from the same people who believe catholics are not christians. They teach false doctrines about Catholics as well. Yet you believe all you read. And as far as apples and oranges. The very miltia that was to protect them left, and was put in the hands of the local milita. This went against what was promised, and seems to be a conspiracy to get Joseph Smith. The only reason he turned himself in was because of that promise. Read some histories about what the mobs did to the Latter Day Saints. Don’t you believe them?
F
Fatboys
Guest
Guys I’m Done with ya. You guys are rude and disrespectful. I would love discussion. But these are attacks. I want to thank the very few here that were respectful, and thank you all for this experience.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
So you admit that JS, who was an agent of the government, used his authority as such to abridge the freedom of the press, but believe he was justified in doing so to hide his polygamy. And yet you wax all indignant patriot over a mob, a mob mind you that acts on their own, not as an agent for the government. You go on to attribute to that mob motivation you can not possibly know, that it was JS’s religion as opposed to his admitted abuse of his authority in the abridgement of Constitutionally guaranteed freedom .
J
Janderich
Guest
Twopekinguys,
You are accusing “Mormon’s” of not taking responsibility for their history and yet in your very next sentence you provide evidence from a Mormon about Joseph shooting a man at Carthage. Do you not see that your accusation is biased against a whole group of people and that your accusation is in some respects false?
So this post where you call the founder of modern Mormonism a “DUCK” is simply a dispassionate discussion? I think you need to analyze your motivation.
It is one thing to provide references it is another to provide a one sided story. Your claim is that “Mormon’s” do this all the time, but almost all the evidence I have seen you provide over the last few months is extremely one sided against Joseph.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
And this has to do with you how exactly? I was responding to Fatboys.
Actually my statements are not in any respect false. I have yet to find a single one on here, or in real life that will admit to it. In fact, we had several mormon posters on here in the past say that Elder Blake was wrong, and your church history is wrong.
Have you never heard of an analogy? That is what the “Duck” comment is/was. You are reading way too much into it, that isn’t there. All mormons that I have encountered refused to look at the facts regarding JS.
Yes, mormons do this all the time. Research the threads around here if you need proof.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Again, you are making accusations without proof.
I will shoot down several of your accusations, then this afternoon, I will start proving my point.
Nuns (consecrated women) is not doctrinal. Celibacy not doctrinal.
Maybe you should do some research on what “doctrine” means.
Still waiting on your references that show the others are not biblical.
You made the accusation prove it!!!
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Another typical tactic.
When you can’t answer for things you’ve said, leave.
So far you have fulfilled just about every single mormon stereotype we have encountered.
Enjoy.
V
vsedriver
Guest
these plural relationships consisted of one wife and many concubines.
V
vsedriver
Guest
Why would a 19th century American translate a book into 16th century Elizabethan English instead of 19th century American English?
Because he wanted his ‘book’ to have the same authority as the KJB. A pure case of fraud.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Sorry, work carried me away longer than was scheduled.
Not that I should answer, because Fatboys said he is out of here (although, he has logged in since he made that comment
), but here goes.Transubstantiation–Biblical. Christ said "This is my body…This is my blood…, at no point did he say that it was only a symbol, sign, or analagy. He was quite clear. When some of them left, he didn’t stop them and say “Wait, I was only kidding”. So, your premise is wrong.
Trinity7–Biblical. When questioned, Christ said, “When you see me, you see the Father”. Not…“Well, I’m one of 3, and their is a family resemblance with my father”. So, your premise is wrong. Again.
Apostolic Succession-Biblical. You should really know this. First, Christ appointed Peter the head of his Church here on Earth( not JS), then when Judas had to be replaced, they elected a successor. So, again, your premise is wrong.
Original Sin- Biblical. When Adam and Eve were cast out, they were basically told that they and their offspring were going to pay for this for all generations. So, your premise fails yet again.
Immaculate Conception- Biblical. Mary was protected from Original sin in order that she be the Mother of God. Do you really think God would be born from an unworthy vessel? After all, the Angel said, “full of Grace” or “favored one”, depending on which translation you use. So, again, your premise fails.
Now, it is your turn to prove these wrong. Try using the Bible, as I did.
Not that you’ve ever provided a reference, or source before, but there is still hope.
Continuing revelation–unbiblical. Christ said “It is finished”. He didn’t say, “for now”, or “I’ll get back to you”.
One difference between the mormon god and the Christian God is that he doesn’t change his mind at the drop of his hat, or bow to social pressure. i.e polygamy, blacks and the priesthood.
As I said earlier, I know you’ve been lurking, and you haven’t left as you said you were, so let’s hear a response with sources OK?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
The BoM, which was/is supposed to be the Most accurate/perfect book ever written has had over 1000 changes to it since it’s first publication.
As I understand it, during the “translation” process. Smith stuck a seer stone in his hat, then stuck his head in the hat to block out all light. Then, character by character, or word by word would be shown to him, and he would relay it to his scribe. Supposedly, they could not continue until each character/word was correct.
With that being said, why over 1000 changes?
Why doesn’t any of your church’s artwork represent this?
Why do your missionaries hedge around addressing this?
On top of that, according to Smith, he found the plates, and ran through the woods, out running, and tricking so called robbers, as he ran through the woods. From what I read, Smith was very sickly as a child, and had a bum leg. How did he outrun anyone? Especially when you consider how much the “golden plates” weighed.
Several of the “eye” witnesses that handled the plates said they had considerable weight.
"Joseph originally said “there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates” (History of the Church, vol. 1, by Joseph Smith, pp. 11-12), Joseph later wrote to John Wentworth that the plates had “the appearance of gold”: “These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold.(History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 537).”
Can’t accuse me of using anti-mormon sources there now can you? Notice how Smith contradicts himself?
Seeing any problems with any of this yet?
I’m praying extra hard for you.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
From the 2007 Sunday School Manual (underlining added):
Pretty reliable and approved mormon source, wouldn’t you say?
And
After removing the plates from the stone box, Joseph hid them in a birch log until preparations could be made at home for the plates. then he went to retrieve them.
“The plates were secreted about three miles from home…Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.”
“After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house.” (Lucy Mack Smith, mother of Joseph Smith, in Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1853, pp. 104-105; Comp. reprinted edition by Bookcraft Publishers in 1956 under the title History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, pp. 107- 108) Emphasis added.
Now, his momma wouldn’t lie now would she?
Code:
Evidence of the Prophet's extraordinary character emerged early in his life. The Smiths were living in West Lebanon, New Hampshire, when a deadly epidemic of typhoid fever attacked many in the community, including all the Smith children. While the other children recovered without complication, Joseph, who was about seven years old, developed a serious infection in his left leg. Dr. Nathan Smith of Dartmouth Medical School at nearby Hanover, New Hampshire, agreed to perform a new surgical procedure to try to save the boy's leg. As Dr. Smith and his colleagues prepared to operate, Joseph asked his mother to leave the room so she would not have to witness his suffering. Refusing liquor to dull the pain and relying only on his father's reassuring embrace, Joseph bravely endured as the surgeon bored into and chipped away part of his leg bone. The surgery was successful, although Joseph walked the next several years with crutches and showed signs of a slight limp the rest of his life.
"The Life and Ministry of Joseph Smith," Teachings of Presidents of the Church:
Joseph Smith, (2007), p xxiiAnd
After removing the plates from the stone box, Joseph hid them in a birch log until preparations could be made at home for the plates. then he went to retrieve them.
“The plates were secreted about three miles from home…Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.”
“After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house.” (Lucy Mack Smith, mother of Joseph Smith, in Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1853, pp. 104-105; Comp. reprinted edition by Bookcraft Publishers in 1956 under the title History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, pp. 107- 108) Emphasis added.
Now, his momma wouldn’t lie now would she?
F
Fatboys
Guest
If this was so plain, why wasn’t it taught until the eleventh century. If Christ wanted them to eat of his Flesh literally, then why did he not cut some of it off and drain some of his blood?Sorry, work carried me away longer than was scheduled.
Not that I should answer, because Fatboys said he is out of here (although, he has logged in since he made that comment
Transubstantiation–Biblical. Christ said "This is my body…This is my blood…, at no point did he say that it was only a symbol, sign, or analagy. He was quite clear. When some of them left, he didn’t stop them and say “Wait, I was only kidding”. So, your premise is wrong.
When Christ was baptized, as he came out of the water after being totally emersed a Voice from Heaven said my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then the Holy Ghost came in the form of a dove. Three distinct beings at the same time.
Christ often taught that he has done nothing but what he was seen his Father do. Why would Christ want to deceive us if he was the Father manifest as Christ in the flesh? Perhaps I am not understanding it correctly.
So did Christ appoint the rest of the popes then as he did Peter?
Taken from Catholic Encyclopidia
Conditions of mortal sin: knowledge, free will, grave matter
Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.
You call sin either material or formal sin. If you transgress without knowledge then it is material. If you transgress with knowlege it is formal sin.
We believe that if you transgress without knowledge it is a transgression. If you transgress with knowledge it is a sin. All disobedience to Gods laws are transgressions. But not all transgressions are sin. We believe that sin is deliberate disobedience.
F
Fatboys
Guest
The Book of Mormon is not perfect and never was considered perfect. It is however the most correct book of translation from one language to another because of the gift and power of God. But Joseph Smith was not perfect and even though God is perfect once his thoughts came through prophets they were no longer pure thoughts because of the weaknesses of men. And the Book of Mormon has had around 3000 changes made to it. Most of which are typos, mistakes by printers, punctuation added, etc. Because it was translated through the gift and power of God, it is more pure in the intent of what the meaning of the writter was.
When Joseph Smith began to translate it was very very difficult for him do so. The first translation of the 116 pages were through interpreters as they were called, and these were found with the Gold plates. This consisted of a breast plate which the translater would put on and then there were two stones that fit into two loops held together like glasses. This had a rod on the bottom of them and one could hold these up with the stones. This fit into the breast plate so the translator could look through them as glasses. There were only two people who witnessed the translation process. One was Joseph Smith who said very little about it, and the other was Oliver Cowdery who was the scribe for most of the Book of Mormon. The othes were speculating as to how the process worked. When the 116 pages of the Book of Lehi and part of the Book of Mosiah were lost, the plates and the interpreters were taken from Joseph Smith. The reason is that Joseph Smith was warned not to let Martin Harris, who was the scribe for most of the 166 pages, wanted to show his wife what he had been doing spending so much time away from his farm. The Lord told Joseph Smith twice no. On the third time he was allowed to let Martin Harris take them. And they were lost, stolen no one knows. Because of this the plates and interperters were taken. The plates were eventually given back without the interpreters. Joseph did have a seer stone and this is why people believe that he stuck it in the hat and put his face in it to see the translation. No one really knows.
Now as for the translation process. Joseph Smith was able to see words on the interpreters, but the process worked through his own knowledge and understanding. He had only three years of education, and his own wife said that he could barely write a sentence that could be understood. So his knowledge was limited to not only education, but did not have access to libraries. What they did have was the Bible. So when Joseph Smith begin to translate, through the gift and power of God, it worked through his understanding and knowledge. The language he was most familar with in the written form was old English. When he translaged it this was the language that he wrote in because to him it was considered sacred writtings. Because it was also translated through his knowledge and understanding there are modern words such as adieu. When Joseph Smith came to a hieroglyph through his understanding and knowledge the word would appear. And so to him adieu best fit the intent of what was being translated,. I do not know how many on this board know other languages, but can understand how difficult it is to translate with pure intent.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Most? Rather ambiguous wouldn’t you say? Most could mean 51%,typos, printer mistakes, etc., but that would leave 49% that would be doctrinally related.
Where is your proof that most of these changes were punctuation etc? Got any figures to back up what “most” consists of?
You have been asked repeatedly for references, on different posts you have made, and all you have provided is suppositions.
Provide a credible reference!!! It shouldn’t be so hard now should it?
You know as well as I do, that the head in the hat story is what has been taught for many years. It hasn’t been until relatively recently that Salt Lake has been moving away from it.
The internet has opened up a whole new world of information. People on the outside and inside both are seeing what the real history of the mormon church is. That is why the outgoing church historian made the statement that the mormon church is losing members at a record pace.
You know, I am tired of asking you for references. I know you won’t provide them. In your refusal to provide them, it just shows your lack of intent for serious conversation.
Let me know when you want to have a meaningful conversations, and you can back up your “statements” with a reference. Most people don’t like chasing the wind.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Could you please list the sources you’ve been reading lately. Thanks
F
Fatboys
Guest
myspace.com/truthrestored/blog/123025170#!
You know as well as I do, that the head in the hat story is what has been taught for many years. It hasn’t been until relatively recently that Salt Lake has been moving away from it.
I have spent years in studying this topic my friend.
- Status