Questions for Mormons..

[dianaiad]

I have looked up “vigilante” and " frontier justice", and I continue to use those terms. Much more appropriate than your “mob of thugs”. If anything, they were better than some of the Mormons.

Mormon Apologists do say that River Pirates joined with the LDS and caused some of the problems in the Nauvoo area. I have found evidence that they were the same ones who harrassed the Shawnee on the Ohio River.

Jerusha?

We have here: 200+ men who were aware enough of the illegal and dishonorable nature of their actions to attempt to disguise themselves. This group contains many of the very guards who were supposed to be protecting the men they are about to murder. They storm the jail, fully expecting the four men they are out to kill are completely unarmed.

They are later indignant to find that oops, one of them actually had a gun and he shot back. How DARE he defend himself against illegal action, and murderous men?

There is nothing about that action that can be ‘positive.’ “Frontier?” not even close. That area was NOT the ‘frontier’ by any stretch of the imagination. There were long established courts, and a duly sworn in and active militia. The fact that Joseph turned himself into an actual officer of the law and allowed himself to be imprisoned in an actual prison built for the purpose should prove that, if nothing else…but we aren’t talking about circuit judges who might show up every other month. The system of laws and officials was in place, and permanent. So this incident was neither ‘frontier’ NOR 'justice."

“Vigilante” Yeah, but there is no use of the word now that is in any sense positive. Nor was it at that time. That you consider it to be so is…well, I expect it from you.

As to your other claims…Jerusha, you make these bald statements, and do not back them up. You expect us to nod our heads like bobble head dolls and agree with you.“Jerusha said that Tom Sharp gathered these depositions, so of course it was OK to murder Joseph Smith: it was just ‘frontier justice.’”

Except that, when the research is actually done, we find that Tom Sharp was Jack Chick squared–with a gun.

From now on, Jerusha, I will require chapter, verse, site and cite for every anti-mormon claim you make.

No more 'I have heard Mormon apologists say that…" you will need to give me the name of the apologist and where I can find what it is s/he actually said/wrote. In detail.

 

[Charlotte408]

I’m sorry to butt in but WHAT are you guys talking about?? who is this JS guy???

 

[dianaiad]

I’m sorry to butt in but WHAT are you guys talking about?? who is this JS guy???

Joseph Smith. I believe he was a prophet and that Jesus Christ and His Father restored the fullness of the gospel, including the authority to perform priesthood functions, through him.

But then, I’m a Mormon.

Non-Mormons think of him as everything from a nutjob to an outright fraud perpetrating a con-job on a bunch of people. Not a very good one, since he was murdered and he died broke, but, well…whatever. Either way, the church he founded (or, from my POV, ‘was restored through’) is still around and doing fine.

 

[dianaiad]

I know that the LDS church maintains that Jesus was born of a virgin, but looking at this evidence it sounds utterly strange…

Ok, today someone mentioned St. Josemaria Escriva’, founder of Opus Dei. The context was some sort of “scandal” about his saying that being married, and having sex within marriage, was a way to honor God.

I didn’t find anything about that. What I DID find, however, is this quote regarding Mary::

“Our Lady. Who could be a better Teacher of the love of God than this Queen, this Lady, this Mother, who has the closest bond with the Trinity: Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of God the Holy Spirit? And at the same time she is our Mother!”

The above is a beautiful tribute to Mary, mother of Jesus. What I noticed particularly about it, though, was the separation between her relationship to God the Father, and her relationship to the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost…). She was the 'daughter" of the first, and the “spouse” of the second.

The idea here is that God isn’t the Father of Jesus, the Holy Ghost is, since HE is the ‘spouse’ involved. This idea is reconcilable, if just barely, if you are a modalist or classic trinitarian; One is All, and All is One sort of thing; what One of Them is, all are.

…though that runs into problems when you admit to the smallest differentiation between Persons…after all, God the Father was not crucified, Jesus the Christ was.

Well, never mind all that. The point is, St. Josemaria wasn’t off the reservation here. His viewpoint was/is pretty standard. It DEFINITELY was in the nineteenth century. Mary was, in many ways, considered the ‘spouse’ of the Holy Ghost, in that it was the Holy Ghost (or at least that aspect of God) Who was responsible for her pregnancy.

But we aren’t trinitarians in that sense. So, whenever that idea came up, we argued that no, the Holy Ghost is NOT the Father of Jesus, God the Father is…and the fact that He is doesn’t mean that He had to use physical sexual intercourse to do it any more than the Holy Ghost would have had to.

…and if you look at the context of all those quotes, that is precisely what you will find; not an argument about the method of impregnation, but rather an argument that the Three are different Persons, and that the Holy Ghost, while He was integral to the process, is still NOT the Father of Jesus. God the Father is.

Does that clear things up any?

 

[why_me]

There was a power struggle going on among the Mormons. JS’s attempt to recruit Nancy Rigdon, young daughter of Sidney Rigdon, to become a secondary “wife” was probably a catalyst. It is altogether possible that they killed the wrong man. Brigham Young, in retrospect, was a much more unsavory character than JS. He could have set JS up in order to depose him. Therefore, the curse that the LDS place upon those responsible for the death of JS falls directly on the heads of the “Brighamite” contingent within the LDS church.

I am not responsible for what happened.

Although this is somewhat of a joke I need to clarify Nancy Rigdon. She said no to JS and Sidney was none to happy with Joseph. But there was no power struggle going on at that time. Sidney was still a member but he was disappointed in JS. Now of course, this brings us to an interesting question: If sidney wrote the book of mormon as some critics claim, why didn’t he spill the beans. And if Sidney’s daughter knew her father wrote the book, why didn’t she spill the beans after this incident. Most likely sidney did not write the book of mormon.

 

[Jerusha]

Nut-job is right. Did you ever read the King Follett sermon? Sidney got excommunicated. You had better check your sources. And yes, Sidney did spill the beans. It just happens, however, that LDS have trouble finding references to it. And, he had to be careful, out of fear of exposing his own guilty deeds, and protecting his family.

I’m done with this discussion over something that happened 165 years ago. It is irrelevant to me, but somehow a critical issue to “Brighamites” Just get over it!!! Like I said, generational resentments lead people to wonder what really DID happen.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face,
tho’ they come from the ends of the earth! Rudyard Kipling

 

[dianaiad]

Nut-job is right. Did you ever read the King Follett sermon?

Yes.

Sidney got excommunicated.

I know.

You had better check your sources.

And I claimed that he was not excommunicated, where, precisely?

And yes, Sidney did spill the beans. It just happens, however, that LDS have trouble finding references to it.

We do, indeed. Of course, you are going to have to explain the magic wand that made those references completely invisible to LDS eyes, when you, evidently, can put your hands right on them. Let’s test this magic screening ability, shall we? You give me the references to Rigdon ‘spilling the beans,’ and I’ll go look. If for some reason all I get is a blank screen, or can’t see the printing on the paper or something, I’ll figure that some amazing mojo is at work, tied to Mormon genes or something, that makes such things totally inaccessible to Mormon eyes.

G’head. Show me were to look.

And, he had to be careful, out of fear of exposing his own guilty deeds, and protecting his family.

I see. Which is it? Did he ‘spill the beans,’ or didn’t he?

I’m done with this discussion over something that happened 165 years ago. It is irrelevant to me, but somehow a critical issue to “Brighamites” Just get over it!!! Like I said, generational resentments lead people to wonder what really DID happen.

ARE you 'done with this discussion?" OK by me. However, if you leave the topic without providing those references I asked you for…you know, the ones you claim exist that support your rather interesting claims, your credibility will have slipped another notch or two.

Your decision, of course.

 

[Janet1983]

Ok, today someone mentioned St. Josemaria Escriva’, founder of Opus Dei. The context was some sort of “scandal” about his saying that being married, and having sex within marriage, was a way to honor God.

I didn’t find anything about that. What I DID find, however, is this quote regarding Mary::

Does that clear things up any?

No… why should it?

 

[why_me]

Nut-job is right. Did you ever read the King Follett sermon? Sidney got excommunicated. You had better check your sources. And yes, Sidney did spill the beans. It just happens, however, that LDS have trouble finding references to it. And, he had to be careful, out of fear of exposing his own guilty deeds, and protecting his family.

I’m done with this discussion over something that happened 165 years ago. It is irrelevant to me, but somehow a critical issue to “Brighamites” Just get over it!!! Like I said, generational resentments lead people to wonder what really DID happen.

Sidney was excommunicated in September 1844 because he was setting up a rival leadership to Brigham. But he wasn’t exed for the king follett sermon. He was actually JS’s running mate for president. JS died in June 1844 and so sidney was excommunicated after JS’s death and he did not spill the beans.

During his lifetime Rigdon and members of his family consistently denied any connection with Spaulding, and after the discovery in 1885 of one of Spaulding’s manuscripts, the story was discredited

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/sidney_rigdon.html

 

[dianaiad]

No… why should it?

(shaking head…)

I guess it wouldn’t, to someone whose purpose is to shoot and aim, and is working very hard not to see the target.

 

[ricko]

I’m sorry to butt in but WHAT are you guys talking about?? who is this JS guy???

JS is the founder of the LDS (Mormon church). He claimed that Jesus, Peter, Paul (not the candy bar) made HIM a prophet. He was guided to some “golden plates” by an angel. These plates allegedly held the record of a bunch of Jews that came to the New World, built great cities had great wars and just…disappeared. No trace can be found of this alleged civilization and the angel took the “golden plates” with him so no one could lay eyes on them. So instead of being in a museum like thousands of ancient records the “golden plates” are somewhere in heaven.

Anyway, JS translated the “golden plates” by using a "seer stone’ which he placed in his hat and then stuck his face into same hat. He claimed he was able to see the translation by the power of god in TV or 3D. And from that event came the “most correct book ever written”, the Book of Mormon.

JS, claimed that he was to “restore” the church (Catholic Church) which had fell into error (The Great Apostasy) and disappeared from the face of the earth. So the Mormons clain that the Catholic Church today is full of error and is no longer the true Church. In the early days the LDS said all kind of nasty things about the Catholic Church such as the church of Satan. They claim they don’t believe that anymore even though their prophets said it was so.

Catholics and most other Christians believe the Book of Mormon to be a fraud and there is much evidence to that fact. We also have “our” bible that warns us of people even angels teaching a false gospel of which the Mormons fall into that category.

Last note. The Mormons consider themselves “Christians” but the majority of Christians do not. They are usually classified as a cult as their beliefs are out in left field. The Catholic Church recognizes the baptisms of most religions except the Mormons and Jehovah Witnessess.

 

[Janet1983]

(shaking head…)

I guess it wouldn’t, to someone whose purpose is to shoot and aim, and is working very hard not to see the target.

You are coming up with catholic arguments to someone who is not catholic… Why should that impress me or clarify anything?

 

[Stephen168]

Anyway, JS translated the “golden plates” by using a "seer stone’ which he placed in his hat and then stuck his face into same hat. He claimed he was able to see the translation by the power of god in TV or 3D. And from that event came the “most correct book ever written”, the Book of Mormon.

Why did he need ‘golden’ plates’ if all he used was a rock and a hat?

 

[Religio71]

Why did he need ‘golden’ plates’ if all he used was a rock and a hat?

because it was there for inspiration…

 

[dianaiad]

JS is the founder of the LDS (Mormon church).

Catholics and most other Christians believe the Book of Mormon to be a fraud and there is much evidence to that fact. We also have “our” bible that warns us of people even angels teaching a false gospel of which the Mormons fall into that category.

Last note. The Mormons consider themselves “Christians” but the majority of Christians do not. They are usually classified as a cult as their beliefs are out in left field. The Catholic Church recognizes the baptisms of most religions except the Mormons and Jehovah Witnessess.

Well, that’s an opinion from the 'JS was a fraud and a con-artist" side. Now there aren’t many Mormons in here…I think, perhaps, there are three or four of us 'defending the faith" against a boatload of Catholics and Protestants, but that’s understandable given the forum we are on.

Still, I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, like Peter, Paul (and no, not the candy bar…), Moses, Isaiah…Matthew and the other apostles of the NT.

 

[dianaiad]

You are coming up with catholic arguments to someone who is not catholic… Why should that impress me or clarify anything?

Huh?

(Looking back at the post…) Oh. I see.

I used St. Josemaria’s quote, not because he was Catholic, but because his quote illustrated the position the quotes you gave us were actually addressing.

I did mention that his position on this was a standard one; by that I meant that it was standard to trinitarians, not simply Catholics.

It doesn’t matter if you agree with the position we were addressing or not, Janet. The point is, that IS the position we were addressing, and for you to take those quotes out of context in order to make them seem as if they are dealing with a different issue is illogical.

…and not very helpful.

 

[Janet1983]

because it was there for inspiration…

So he did what we all knew… He did not translate the plates, but stared at stones in a hat…
Wasn’t he convicted for using that thing in another case?

“People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowell on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowell several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowell had been engaged in digging for them; that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he has occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes - made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business… And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty.”

 

[mjf001]

Charlotte408,
First, in answer to some of these questions, please be aware that Mormons do believe in a spirit world after this life, and in eternal progression which means that there is going to be progress after this life, including learning and changing. So the questions about what one spouse does who dies first, show a lack of understanding that they will eventually both be in the spirit world together after both have died, and will be resurrected together during the Millenium, and then at that point, after their resurrection, they will still have a lot of growing and learning and changing to do, along with everyone else. We are talking thousands of years ahead of us in our current view of time, when we look at the potential to be “like Christ”.

“Creation” is meaningful. It need not be thought of derogatorily. I take it to mean a “beautiful, fascinating earth” with mountains and water and vegetation and animals and then having spirits go to that “earth” which (thousands of years from now) I can have the opportunity to have helped “create”. This would be done by the power of faith (the kind of faith Jesus said could move mountains) and the knowledge of how matter and energy in the universe obey the commands of God. It would also be in complete harmony and unified action with the will of Heavenly Father, the Savior, and the Holy Spirit. To “create” does not detract from Them. It adds to their joy, just as when we observe a child learning to “create” and use their talents, we as a parent have joy in observing that process.

This need not be hard to understand. But if a person is going to look at it in some competitive sense or some derogatory sense, then it will not be meaningful at all to them.

As a Catholic, I reject the idea of a pre-mortal existence. To be fair, I must acknowledge I rejected the idea long before I became Catholic, long before I realized why I rejected the idea. The Catholic position, that the soul is created at conception makes more sense to me. The Catholic position, that this world was created, not organized, makes more sense to me. Why would the all mighty have to use preexisting matter? It makes more sense that he created the universe, including the laws which govern it, to suit his purposes.

Just my two cents,
Michael

 

[dianaiad]

As a Catholic, I reject the idea of a pre-mortal existence. To be fair, I must acknowledge I rejected the idea long before I became Catholic, long before I realized why I rejected the idea. The Catholic position, that the soul is created at conception makes more sense to me. The Catholic position, that this world was created, not organized, makes more sense to me. Why would the all mighty have to use preexisting matter? It makes more sense that he created the universe, including the laws which govern it, to suit his purposes.

Just my two cents,
Michael

Ok, and the method of doing that matters to anybody, why, precisely?

 

[ParkerD]

As a Catholic, I reject the idea of a pre-mortal existence. To be fair, I must acknowledge I rejected the idea long before I became Catholic, long before I realized why I rejected the idea. The Catholic position, that the soul is created at conception makes more sense to me. The Catholic position, that this world was created, not organized, makes more sense to me. Why would the all mighty have to use preexisting matter? It makes more sense that he created the universe, including the laws which govern it, to suit his purposes.

Just my two cents,
Michael

Hi, Michael,
I suppose you know through your studies that the word which was translated into the word “created” in Genesis 1 is more correctly translated into the word “organized” or “formed.” In your mind, when did the War in heaven described by John the Revelator happen? (Rev. 12:7-9) When did “all the sons of God shout for joy” as described in Job 38:7? How was Jeremiah known by God before he was formed in the womb? (Jeremiah 1:5)

I’m OK with your beliefs that evidently God made the Big Bang happen and that started everything off exactly as He had planned. But the Bible does support there having been a pre-mortal life, and that Lucifer rebelled during that pre-mortal period of eternity, and that Christ was the First Born of all the children of God.