B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Can you please send the info you have on pope Alexandar, I love reading about this,thank you and I will be waiting on the ifno
- Status
E
Eliza10
Guest
I quibble with your “many a pope”. I say relatively few. There have been many many popes, and far more saints than sinners.
Yes, we have hypocrite sinning popes in our history. They are witness that some of are worst enemies are from within not without and yet the Church still stands and always will till the end of time.
And I quibble with “absolute power”. Unlike Mormon officials, who can change doctine with the changing of the tides, and reverse things their founder Smith taught as directives from God Himself, Popes cannot change any infallible teaching of any previous Pope. So the Pope with the most power is the first Pope. The next Pope cannot undo any infalible teaching of his, and the third Pope neither of the previous two. So by the time you get to Pope 265, there is a lot of restriction on what you can teach. Thats why we won’t ever have abortion, or women priests, for example.
So definately what the Popes have is not “absolute power” but when Joseph Smith had, that was absolute power and it did corrupt absolutely.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Just the links, please, since its off-topic.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
okay please just send the link
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Catholics know about this stuff, it is no secret and no one even tries to hide it anymore!
Smith was in a position of control and power, so were the popes who made horrible errors in their private life.
Why do catholics do this when they have many more men in power who made grave errors in judgment and Smith is one guy?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The difference is that when Popes did bad things, they tried to hide it, knowing it was wrong. When Joseph Smith did horrible things, he taught that they were commanded by God, and then taught his followers to do those things as well, calling evil good. Doing evil and claiming it is the will of God is a horrible sin.
No pope ever taught that adultery was a virtue. Joseph Smith did. That is the difference,
No pope ever taught that adultery was a virtue. Joseph Smith did. That is the difference,
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
The bible actually does make it okay for men to have a wife and others as you know.
The bible states it was because men’s hearts were hardened.
But, it still established at least a precedent for it.
There never was any condoning of the other things we know happened.
And, you summed up another problem. Smith may not have known what he did was wrong, whereas those popes most certainly did know it was wrong to do what they did.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Will you please show us the info you have on these pope,I think they say they had about 3 bad pope but if you know of more please let us
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
None of the popes had to have perfect morals in their private life, you know that right?
It should not matter how many were leading immoral lives. Because, they can. As long as they do not err in matters of declaring dogma I think they can be just like any other person.
Always a get out of jail free card somewhere.
W
why_me
Guest
To answer your question you will need to read this:
en.fairmormon.org/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families
Mormons do not believe that Joseph Smith got an itch in his pants. The amount of wives that he married in two years shows that he was in a hurry to get something done. And for mormons it was to do with the word of god who at that time was requiring plural marriage. And if he really was being threatened by an angel, well, we can see he did not want to waste anytime.
Joseph was a busy man at that time not just with being sealed to women but also with building a city, Nauvoo; running a church, establishing ordinances in the temple such as baptism for the dead and many other things were going on.
In the end, polygamy got him murdered not by a jealous husband but by a intolerant mob. The hateful stories about the mormons were making their rounds among the none mormons and the persecution that the mormons were suffering was severe.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Eliza,
Victorian prose uses romanticized and elevated language to try and express strong emotion. It was dominant in literary styles during the early to mid-1800’s, and continued in the writings of others who were brought up in that period of time. I just don’t find a piece of writing that has the kind of language she used as believable first-person writing. It seems a work of fiction to me, but I suppose it makes a good story for those looking for a story.
As to the drawn sword, I don’t sense that Joseph Smith feared for his life in that experience, if it indeed happened at all. He didn’t fear death at all. He did, however, feel a deep sense of the importance of what he had been called to do in being an instrument to restore the true gospel of Christ as God revealed it line upon line to the world through him, and did not want to be found not having acted when God had commanded him to act. I suppose perhaps Abraham felt the same way in several of his experiences. Active faith requires action, even when our own heart with our limited understanding would send us in a different direction.
I think history shows ample evidence in the case of Joseph Smith that he received the temporary doctrine of plural marriage with extreme reluctance, not wanting to do it at all other than because he had been commanded to do it by revelation and knew he was being held responsible to do what God had commanded.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Can’t think of man who considered (and then did) marrying his children. Maybe Woody Allen??? Why do you suppose he only wanted the eldest children??? The word grooming comes to mind.
W
why_me
Guest
Lucy was probably writing in victorian prose to elevate her experience. There is no question that Lucy Walker received a divine witness as to plural marriage for the mormons. Here she is decribing her experience:
Lucy describes the answer she later received while alone:
My room became filled with a heavenly influence. To me it was in comparison like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud…My Soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that I never knew. Supreme happiness took possession of my whole being. And I received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the marriage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage.’ Which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the Joy and grattitude that filled my Soul. As I descended the stairs, Prest. Smith opened the door below; took me by the hand and said: ‘Thank God, you have the testimony. I too, have prayed.’ He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with Every blessing my heart could possibly desire
This is from the mormonapologetic website: en.fairmormon.org/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families#Lucy_Walker
W
why_me
Guest
One liners do not cut it. You will need to challenge Lucy’s account of receiving a witness. She describes as being very powerful. After that powerful witness, she agrees to be sealed to JS:
Lucy Walker
Of the proposal of marriage:
When [Joseph] Smith sensed resistance, as has been seen, he generally continued teaching—asking the prospective wife to pray about the principle, promising that she would receive a witness. So it happened here. ‘He said, “if you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you Shall receive a testimony of the correctness of this principle.”’ Lucy was horrified by polygamy and by his proposal and did not quickly gain the promised testimony. She prayed, she wrote, but not with faith. She was nearly suicidal: “tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest of the bosom of my dear mother.[11]
Joseph waited at least four months, and then told Mary that she had to decide before the next day. What was her response?
‘This aroused every drop of scotch in my veins,’ [wrote Mary,]…I felt at this moment that I was called to place myself upon the altar a living Sacrafice, perhaps to brook the world in disgrace and incur the displeasure and contempt of my youthful companions; all my dreams of happiness blown to the four winds, this was too much, the thought was unbearable.’…She then told Joseph that she could not marry him unless God revealed it to her, and God had not done so yet. She wrote, ‘* emphatically forbid him speaking again to me on this Subject.’[12]
What was Joseph’s response? Did he threaten? Cajole? Use his prophetic office to apply pressure?
He walked across the room, returned, and stood before me. With the most beautiful expression of countenance, he said, “God almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that peace and joy that you never knew.”[13]
Lucy describes the answer she later received while alone:
My room became filled with a heavenly influence. To me it was in comparison like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud…My Soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that I never knew. Supreme happiness took possession of my whole being. And I received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the marriage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage.’ Which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the Joy and grattitude that filled my Soul. As I descended the stairs, Prest. Smith opened the door below; took me by the hand and said: ‘Thank God, you have the testimony. I too, have prayed.’ He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with Every blessing my heart could possibly desire.[14]*
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Or, it is authentic.
A non-comparison. I doubt JS was threatened, other than, getting caught with his pants down. Polygamy being his cover for adultery. Apparently it worked, as here you are nearly 170 years later, defending it.
You believe JS was threatened? Or, how about, he made the whole thing up in order to get into a teenager’s pants? Never crossed your mind? Would you give your 15 year old daughter to a 30 year old man, who is already married? If he said your salvation depended upon it, would it put weight behind your decision? How far would you go in what you “do for God?”, before some reasoning kicks in and you say “wait a minute”.
Or, you could get angry and tar and feather the man and hire a doctor to castrate him.
Which is the normal reaction for a father of a loved child?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
W
why_me
Guest
Not at all. It didn’t sound like that at all. She married and led a very normal life with a loving husbandand had nine children. If she had a bad experience, she would have told it.
And it wasn’t a question of putting her past behind her. Her exact words to her brother was: ‘That is all a matter of my—own. And I have nothing to communicate’. And this was said after Joseph’s death. She wanted to keep what happened private.
But of course we all can put are own spin on it. You put a shame spin on it without room for wiggle. But if she were married to Joseph how could she marry again without a divorce? I don’t think that one could have two husbands at that time in the USA.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Ding! Ding! ADULTERY.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I guess Mary is off the hook because Joseph was a widow possibly. What the heck is all this but merely pointing out how biblical positions were based on the culture of the time, and almost anything went then.
Lot and his daughters. Uggg.
Need I go on? The bible is filled with repugnant situations in it.
W
why_me
Guest
Why did god set many of the orginal twelve apostles up? I heard that many died a miserable death. Wasn’t Peter crucified upside down? And why did god have faustina die from a miserable illness? But since a human being has free will, he or she is allowed to commit crimes and illness is a part of our lives.Why would God set him up like that?
- Status