Seeking a balanced description of Mormoninsm

[Paul_G]

I have to challenge that last piece. Quite a few folks who knew him well and were close to him cam to realize that. Are you aware of how many of his counselors in the first presidency “apostatized”?
You might want to read what William Law had to say. he was probably the most “stable” and tried pretty hard to present unbiased facts in his writings on it. the rift between Emma and Brigham Young is certainly indicative of an issue as well.

So stable that in 1843 William Law with others hatched a plot to kill Joseph Smith. I’m afraid this does not sound unbiased to me.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

Treat who, Joseph Smith. He is dead. He taught lies,…

Well that’s who we have been talking about, like the apostles he was brought before magistrates on account of his religious teaching. These proceedings were brought out of bigotry.

and yes, I feel justified in speaking out against those lies.

But that is not what I asked. You have a right to speak out on anything you wish, but does anyone have the right to harass another by the law in an attempt to silence what they believe? We are talking founding principles of your country here, not justification to speak out.

Paul

 

[why_me]

Here are some videos touching on the book of mormon and the bible. They are from FAIR, the mormon apologetic site.

FAIR releases online videos
FAIR is releasing short segments from an upcoming video rebutting The Bible vs The Book of Mormon. Here is the list:

BOM Geography Old World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5358813362888703041

BOM and Temples:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7692616129159333306

Testimonies of the scholars:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4101557833549167256

Scholars views of Bible vs. Book of Mormon:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7922723852365603972

Horses, Chariots, and elephants:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2986196945639217658

Grains in the New World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1869596632644737431

BOM Geography in the New World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6630925482362212517

Coins in the Book of Mormon:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8092497671084706362

Archaeology and the Bible:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1640773288196586414

Metallurgy in the New World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5998413672485120003

 

[why_me]

So stable that in 1843 William Law with others hatched a plot to kill Joseph Smith. I’m afraid this does not sound unbiased to me.

Paul

Yes, William Law had an axe to grind. He was definitely biased. His newspaper was designed to rile the mobs against the lds church.

Joseph Smith was admired by many but he also had his enemies, including those that were once close to him. But in the end, he was murdered because of intolerence. Not so different that one would find here on this forum toward faiths that are not Catholic.

en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor

 

[Paul_G]

I don’t normally post on these boards; but, as a life-long Catholic, I can say that I have generally been treated VERY poorly by Mormons. My faith has been referred to “the great abominable church,” “the whore of Babylon,” and “the mother of all whores.” I’ve heard this garbage over and over again, ad nauseam. I heard it as a kid in the school yard (nice to teach that stuff to their children), and as an adult. I’ve never researched it, but it is my understanding that these epithets actually come from Mormon scripture/doctrine and/or direct quotes from Mormon prophets/apostles. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken.

I’m quite sure depending where you grew up that you may have received the short end of the stick by some. However, this treatment is not exclusive to you as a Catholic, I believe anyone who finds themselves as a member of a religious minority living among greater numbers of another faith will receive similar treatment - My children have, not by other children but by adults. Unfortunately there are bigots most everywhere and need to repent of it.

There are numerous differences between Mormonism and Christianity; in fact, Mormons did not consider THEMSELVES Christians until fairly recently. Some of these points have been raised here, such as the doctrine of eternal progression (as man is, god once was; as god is, man can become – or something like that). One can become a god of his own planet and there are countless gods. Another would be the “signs and tokens;” i.e., the secret handshakes and passwords one needs to enter the highest of the three Mormon heavens (the one in which God and Jesus reside, as individuals with multiple wives). One can only learn these handshakes and passwords by being a temple worthy Mormon. Another is that nobody can enter that heaven without the express approval of Joseph Smith; i.e., he is the gatekeeper. There are numerous others and I’m not trying to be critical here; simply to point out that there is a very wide gulf between Mormonism and even the most liberal of biblical Christian churches. That’s not to say that one is good, and one is bad, nor that anybody is banished to hell; but they are theologically mutually exclusive.

I wouldn’t expect you to have everything straight about what LDS think and believe. There is so much around to confuse the issues. However, what we may or may not believe has no bearing on our being just as worthy to receive the blessings of the Gospel, that is the “good news”, Now if you could point out in scripture that because we have some different thoughts about things, even though they may run contrary to the status quo, which makes our faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour less valid, I would study it.

There is some deception here, in that the missionaries do not present the more unorthodox material to potential converts prior to baptism and all converts must be rebaptized. This practice is institutionalized and referred to as “milk before meat,” it allows them to gradually introduce the more peculiar Mormon teachings AFTER one has already become Mormon. Scientology follows the same practice. Contrast this to RCIA, where potential converts MUST learn everything the Church teaches PRIOR to becoming Catholic.

I think Paul knew what he was talking about, as did Ignatius.

“Am I not able to write to you of heavenly things? But I fear to do so, lest I should inflict injury on you who are but babes [in Christ]. Pardon me in this respect, lest, as not being able to receive [such doctrines], ye should be strangled by them. For even I, though I am bound [for Christ], yet am not on that account able to understand heavenly things, and the places Or, “stations.” of the angels, and their gatherings under their respective princes, things visible and invisible. Without reference to such abstruse subjects, I am still but a learner [in other; for many things are wanting to us, that we come not short of God.”[/COLOR] (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter V)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well that’s who we have been talking about, like the apostles he was brought before magistrates on account of his religious teaching. These proceedings were brought out of bigotry.

But that is not what I asked. You have a right to speak out on anything you wish, but does anyone have the right to harass another by the law in an attempt to silence what they believe? We are talking founding principles of your country here, not justification to speak out.

Paul

Smith was tried, or attempted to be brought to justice, for many things but never his religious teachings. Unless you count swindling people with a seer stone, a failed bank, and the destruction of a printing press as religious teachings.

Your second part, I have no idea what you are talking about. Though, I find it ironic you call out the US freedom card when Smith was running Nauvoo as a religious tyrant, and suppressed any and all who spoke against him.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I knew about the animals, metals, and grains controversies but none the less the impressions I received were significant. It was not for a few years that I understood what these impressions were – The testimony of the Holy Ghost to my spirit. To me the Book of Mormons message is of a spiritual nature not a history lesson

/B]. I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Paul

Hey guys!

Did I call it or what!!??

When the questions get TOO direct, go to that old bromide: ‘burning in the bosom’!

It’s like tossing grapefruits to A-Rod!

Oh, Paul, what EXACTLY is that “message” from the HS concerning the BoM about???

[we won’t hold our collective breath for an answer on this one, either]

Robert

 

[why_me]

.

Your second part, I have no idea what you are talking about. Though, I find it ironic you call out the US freedom card when Smith was running Nauvoo as a religious tyrant, and suppressed any and all who spoke against him.

You sound like William Law. I am sure that if you would transplant yourself into that time frame, you would be with the mobs. Am I right?

 

[why_me]

Smith was tried, or attempted to be brought to justice, for many things but never his religious teachings. Unless you count swindling people with a seer stone, a failed bank, and the destruction of a printing press as religious teachings.

Actually, the problem with Law centered on Plural Marriage. Mormonism was upsetting many people. And yes, its religious teachings were the main reason. The bank failure occurred when many banks at that time failed. JS also lost money in the venture.

The printing press, the Nauvoo Expositor, was focusing on JS’s relgious teachings and on the church as then run by JS.

See my link in a previous post on the previous page.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, William Law had an axe to grind. He was definitely biased. His newspaper was designed to rile the mobs against the lds church.

Joseph Smith was admired by many but he also had his enemies, including those that were once close to him. But in the end, he was murdered because of intolerence. Not so different that one would find here on this forum toward faiths that are not Catholic.

en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor

Seriously, someone was murdered on the CAF forums?

William Law exposed Smith’s lies about polygamy. Where Smith’s response was to destroy the printing press. So there you had a person who had complete control of his own city, his own military, that he proclaimed himself general of, was practicing immoral sexual behaviors (polygamy and polyandry-or if you prefer wife-swapping) that were completely unacceptable and he destroyed a newspaper press that printed the truth. THAT is what riled people up. Is that the fault of William Law, or Smith?

So yeah, Smith had enemies, as he well should have, as he was attempting to build a theocracy, something that is not generally acceptable to citizens of the US.

The Smiths were murdered, no doubt about that, and it was wrong. But certainly he wasn’t the man that mormons idolize. And certainly he was no prophet.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I know your words. Your attitudes are well communicated by them…

Hey Paul G, over here! Yoo Hoo!

Rebecca’s PROBLEMS with that goofy mormon pantheology vis-a-vis Christianity is what she is writing about.

But in your glazed denial everything is “feelings” or “attitudes.”
Oh yeah, and any official spouting contradictions about what mormons should believe, you term it “misunderstanding” or [as per your tagteam buddy, whyme] “speculation.”

How about ANSWERING the questions, paul g?

Try that tack, it’s the most direct, intellectually honest and, oh yeah, we’re discussing mormonism and it’s belief system, oh well, it was worth a shot anyway!

Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

You sound like William Law. I am sure that if you would transplant yourself into that time frame, you would be with the mobs. Am I right?

So every mormon believes whyme, either you idolize Smith as a prophet, or you are out to murder him.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, the problem with Law centered on Plural Marriage. Mormonism was upsetting many people. And yes, its religious teachings were the main reason. The bank failure occurred when many banks at that time failed. JS also lost money in the venture.

The printing press, the Nauvoo Expositor, was focusing on JS’s relgious teachings and on the church as then run by JS.

See my link in a previous post on the previous page.

whyme, Smith fled Ohio because there was a warrant for his arrest because of his failed bank. So, you’re saying, that because others did it and Smith lost his own money in his illegal bank scheme, that it was ok?

 

[why_me]

Seriously, someone was murdered on the CAF forums?

William Law exposed Smith’s lies about polygamy. Where Smith’s response was to destroy the printing press. So there you had a person who had complete control of his own city, his own military, that he proclaimed himself general of, was practicing immoral sexual behaviors (polygamy and polyandry-or if you prefer wife-swapping) that were completely unacceptable and he destroyed a newspaper press that printed the truth. THAT is what riled people up. Is that the fault of William Law, or Smith?

The argument was whether or not plural marriage should be made known to the general public. Law wanted Joseph to make the plural marriage doctrine public and to acknowledge that it was wrong. JS could not do this. To make plural marriage public would have risked the lives of the lds.

Nauvoo was a mormon town or city just like Boston was a catholic town or city.

 

[why_me]

So every mormon believes whyme, either you idolize Smith as a prophet, or you are out to murder him.

No, but your attitude toward mormonism does resemble the mob rousers from that time. It is all in the tone of your posts.

If I understood correctly you are an exmormon with an axe to grind. But the truth is: any faith can be torn to sheds, including the catholic faith. Many skeletons in that closet. The easiest work is to tear something down. Much more difficult to build something up.

 

[why_me]

whyme, Smith fled Ohio because there was a warrant for his arrest because of his failed bank. So, you’re saying, that because others did it and Smith lost his own money in his illegal bank scheme, that it was ok?

Ohio Cases
By February 1831, Joseph and the entire church in New York had moved to Kirtland, Ohio. What success did he have in court there? Actually, they had a great deal–until the last two years.

In Ohio Joseph brought or defended some sixty-six varied civil or criminal suits, including some Kirtland Temple Committee cases. These ranged from performing marriages without a license to a case arising from Zion’s Camp. Joseph also countered with his own suits: like slander, assault and battery. In August 1837, the year after the Kirtland Temple was dedicated, Joseph Smith, Sr., and eighteen others forcibly evicted an armed mob seeking to take it over. They were sued for riot and assault but were acquitted by J.P. Oliver Cowdery. Also, in January 1838, five men were acquitted of arson for burning the Church’s printing press and book bindery near the temple. Joseph Smith did lose a few civil cases, including one for the return of consecrated property. Then with the depression and panic of 1837 came a plague of debt-collection suits. Finally, there came a case involving the most serious business disaster of his life–brought the last year they were in Ohio.

With credit in scarce supply, the saints formed their own bank, like many in the Western Reserve, to help ease the crunch. It was called the “Kirtland Safety Society” (another oxymoron). Like so many others, their bank failed. But unlike the others, the Mormons at the last minute were denied their banking license. They tried to stamp the word “Anti” before “bank,” but that didn’t work either. In 1837, a private action was brought for banking without a license. Before the case could be heard in October, legal and other persecution in Ohio rose to a new level.

On 27 July 1837, Joseph recorded that he was “detained all day by wicked and vexatious law suits.” Apparently, he was sued on six separate charges–and tried on at least three of them–on the same day! (We haven’t discovered them all, but most were probably civil debt collection cases.) At the end of the day, Joseph said:

About sunset, I got into my carriage to return home. At this moment, the sheriff sprang into our carriage, seized my lines, and served another writ on me…sworn out by a man who a few weeks previous had brought a new fashioned cooking stove to Kirtland…and wished me to test it for him. That man thought that now would be a good time to get paid for it. I gave my watch to the officer for security and we all returned home.5

From then on, he made a point of avoiding Painesville!

At the fall jury trial on the Kirtland Safety Society Case, Joseph and some prior bank officers apparently lost their case and appealed. Before it could be heard, however, the remaining saints had left en masse for Missouri. Ultimately, the private party who brought suit through a straw man recovered a judgment and took a lien on some assets, including the Kirtland Temple. It eventually came into RLDS hands, where it has remained to this day. The saints moved, but not to flee their debts. Of the more than $52,000 owed by Joseph and the Temple Committee, over 90% was paid–even after Joseph left Ohio and abandoned his beloved temple in January 1838.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Legal_Trials_of_Joseph_Smith.html

 

[majick275]

and just why did William Law have an axe to grind? he had been a counselor in the first presidency and KNEW what Joseph Smith was up to. Many of you here love to throw out the tired old persecuted by the mobs story not realizing that many of those “mobs” were mormons that discovered the truth. they weren’t after Joseph because of the BoM or anything like that. They were outraged at teh lengths he went to sleep with their daughters, wives, sisters, etc. and the fact that he swindled many out of their life savings and would pre-emptively slander those who wouldn’t submit to his dictatorship by exing them and telling the world how terrible they were. Do you really believe that so many “witnesses” to the BoM, Apostles, First presidency counselors were really “apostates”?

why me, generic build up vs. tear down and everyone else has skeletons too type arguments would seem to prove my case rather than yours. both the Catholic church AND the mormons teach that God DOES care what church you believe in and that there IS a true church established by God. You can’t be fencesitter and just say that because a church has good people in it then we should just appreciate it and think everyone who tries to be good is heaven bound. it doesn’t work that way. you might want to read what Jesus said he would do with the “lukewarm” in the Bible.

exposing lies and corruption in any church is necessary. exposing false doctrine, heresy etc. is even more important because it affects the beliefs of the good people as well as the bad. Jesus literally came to earth and built a church. that church never left. the only one that has been here the whole time is the Catholic church. The Mormon church is wrong and it is necessary to say so and detail why so that folks don’t get lead astray.
I am not in a “mob” and I don’t advocate violence towards mormons or anyone else. I do think Joseph Smith was a criminal who was deceiving people and I think those who follow him are victims of his deceit. I don’t see how I can just here and smile and watch LDS missionaries preach that it’s great and everyone ought to join without speaking up about the truth.

 

[truthsilence]

Originally Posted by majick275
…and watch LDS missionaries preach that it’s great and everyone ought to join without speaking up about the truth

And, I might add, they are encouraged to preach it, even if they don’t believe it themselves.

 

[PaulDupre]

Smith was tried, or attempted to be brought to justice, for many things but never his religious teachings. Unless you count swindling people with a seer stone, a failed bank, and the destruction of a printing press as religious teachings.

Perhaps Paul G was thinking of JS’s “religious teaching” on polygamy, which Joseph practiced secretly for many years, often lied by publically denying it, coerced young girls into it and did not “teach” it until his little secret was discovered.

And which was, by the way, AGAINST THE LAW!

Paul

 

[why_me]

Unlike some of the catholic mudslingers I tend not to practice it. But since the unchristian catholic language in this section of the forums is so rude, I can’t resist. Here is some mud to wash off:

The Bad Popes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Bad Popes is a 1986 book by E. R. Chamberlin documenting the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):

Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber[1]
Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borja, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politiking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

Read it and weep…