Why Accept Joseph Smith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I too was confused by Viki’s post. I am thinking she may have gotten Diana confused with some other poster.🤷
I think she may have read the post Diana made where she asked me if I would disclose answers to very specific sex related questions. This was meant as some sort of comparison to the sacred nature of a LDS temple.
 
You will need to talk with Mr. Finch. He brought it up by making a comparison between the wrong acts of catholics and mormons. And yes, satan is rejoicing but he has been rejoicing for quite a long time, especially when catholics post contentious, negative posts about the lds church.
I know he mentioned “criminal acts” but you specifically brought up the sex abuse scandal. I’m just suggesting anyone who wants to discuss it go to a thread dedicated to it.

whyme - you said it’s okay for underaged girls to be given to married men if the parents approve. I think that is a negative and strange post. In other words, don’t throw stones.

btw - not all Catholics post contentious, negative posts about the LDS church. True, everyone needs to be reminded to be charitable in their posts. Some people have more aggressive posting styles than others and this is not exclusive to just the Catholics;)
 
You will need to talk with Mr. Finch. He brought it up by making a comparison between the wrong acts of catholics and mormons. And yes, satan is rejoicing but he has been rejoicing for quite a long time, especially when catholics post contentious, negative posts about the lds church.
This is the comparison that AtticusFinch made:

Joseph Smith- sexual predator, and those who enabled his actions. Mormons like yourself defend these acts as a divine guidance from God.

Sexual predations by Priests and those who enabled their actions. Catholics do not defend these acts in any way. Certainly no one would ever claim these were acts of divine guidance.

Where exactly is the righteous indignation coming from Mormons for Smith’s sexual predatory nature. OH yeah…people who see Smith for what he is just might have this problem for themselves.

Get real.
 
I think she may have read the post Diana made where she asked me if I would disclose answers to very specific sex related questions. This was meant as some sort of comparison to the sacred nature of a LDS temple.
That’s exactly the post that I was refering to. I feel that it was disgusting to compare the 2. I thought about reporting her, but in all honesty I do not have time for this…😉
 
That’s exactly the post that I was refering to. I feel that it was disgusting to compare the 2. I thought about reporting her, but in all honesty I do not have time for this…😉
It really is uncharacteristic, so yeah, I’d let it go. : )
 
This is the comparison that AtticusFinch made:

Joseph Smith- sexual predator, and those who enabled his actions. Mormons like yourself defend these acts as a divine guidance from God.

Sexual predations by Priests and those who enabled their actions. Catholics do not defend these acts in any way. Certainly no one would ever claim these were acts of divine guidance.

Where exactly is the righteous indignation coming from Mormons for Smith’s sexual predatory nature. OH yeah…people who see Smith for what he is just might have this problem for themselves.

Get real.
Was Joseph Smith convicted of being a sexual predator? I must have missed it. I see no evidence that JS was a sexual predator nor was he convicted of such behavior. However, when it comes to priests, it is hard to condemn them when there was a coverup. Now when it all comes out, there can be no defense. Likewise if it came out the Joseph Smith molested young boys and the mormon leadership covered it up, well, that would be quite damaging.

And you know and I know that if it were the lds church now having the problems the catholic church has to deal with, you would be the first to highlight it in every post about mormons.
 
What criminal acts? Now I do know that in Wisconsin, a priest molested countless deaf boys. What excuses can be given for that? And yet, no one disciplined that priest and he was allowed to molest more boys. Now that is criminal, not just for the priest but for those who covered it all up.

But it was a nice try in generalizing in your post.
um…I was thinking about all the crimes JS committed. I was thinking about how only one person was tried for MMM and BY got off scott free. I was thinking about the people who tried to kidnap my children, I was thinking about the crimes of Porter Rockwell…

But it was a nice try, you playing stupid…
 
You will need to talk with Mr. Finch. He brought it up by making a comparison between the wrong acts of catholics and mormons. And yes, satan is rejoicing but he has been rejoicing for quite a long time, especially when catholics post contentious, negative posts about the lds church.
and when Mormons do what Mormons do…
 
This is the comparison that AtticusFinch made:

Joseph Smith- sexual predator, and those who enabled his actions. Mormons like yourself defend these acts as a divine guidance from God.

Sexual predations by Priests and those who enabled their actions. Catholics do not defend these acts in any way. Certainly no one would ever claim these were acts of divine guidance.

Where exactly is the righteous indignation coming from Mormons for Smith’s sexual predatory nature. OH yeah…people who see Smith for what he is just might have this problem for themselves.

Get real.
Thank you, Rebecca. I knew a Catholic would understand and a Mormon would play dumb
 
Was Joseph Smith convicted of being a sexual predator?

Not being convicted does not mean not guilty. Look at OJ. Not being convicted only means he ran from the law, abused the law, or was killed before convicted. Are you truly so uneducated that you believe not being convicted means not guilty?

I see no evidence that JS was a sexual predator

Because you refuse to see it. The evidence is there. Witnesses have been quoted. You choose to ignore. But, then, you are LDS

However, when it comes to priests, it is hard to condemn them when there was a coverup. Now when it all comes out, there can be no defense.

The Priests who are guilty should spend the rest of their lives in prison. They should face the full extent of the law. Anyone who hid it should face the same penalty. At least Catholics do not make excuses for their law breakers.

Likewise if it came out the Joseph Smith molested young boys and the mormon leadership covered it up, well, that would be quite damaging.

I doubt it. He preyed on young girls and you deny it and make excuses for it

And you know and I know that if it were the lds church now having the problems the catholic church has to deal with, you would be the first to highlight it in every post about mormons.
Maybe. But no one has discussed the many books and articles were LDS women have reported being sexually abused by their husbands. heck, there was a book by the daughter of Hugh Nibley where she accused HIM of sexual misconduct…her own father, and instead of investigating, the Church ran to his defense.
 
I don’t know if McLellin can be believed. There’s obviously more reading to be done to determine that. If Emma did see and chose to talk about her husband’s infidelity, I wouldn’t call it “blabbing”, by the way.:rolleyes:

Did JS marry Fanny Alger? Was Emma asked about this first?
I keep going back to the question of whether or not relationships started THEN the wife was made aware or were wives part of the decision in plural marriages BEFORE a relationship began?
whyme- I think you forgot this one. I guess I’ll just keep asking you since it appears you are flying solo.
 
Was Joseph Smith convicted of being a sexual predator? I must have missed it. I see no evidence that JS was a sexual predator nor was he convicted of such behavior. However, when it comes to priests, it is hard to condemn them when there was a coverup. Now when it all comes out, there can be no defense. Likewise if it came out the Joseph Smith molested young boys and the mormon leadership covered it up, well, that would be quite damaging.

And you know and I know that if it were the lds church now having the problems the catholic church has to deal with, you would be the first to highlight it in every post about mormons.
You are so predictable.
 
Usually, a history is written AFTER events have taken place. I wouldn’t think JS would write a history about himself or his church while he was alive.

What is the official ruling on the accuracy of the History of the Church vol 5?
Who was it written by?
Another one that got missed. I guess it’s for you whyme - the others are MIA
 
That’s exactly the post that I was refering to. I feel that it was disgusting to compare the 2. I thought about reporting her, but in all honesty I do not have time for this…😉
With all due respect, Vicki, this was handled elsewhere…and you are, quite frankly, considerably more over the line than I was. I was not comparing sex to religion. I was comparing something that I THOUGHT was very special, a sacred sort of communication between spouses…something that God gave us and something that is NOBODY ELSE"S BUSINESS, and is neither dirty, nor filthy, nor any of the other epithets you used, to how we feel about being riduculed and criticised for not wanting to discuss Temple matters outside Temple walls.

My point was that, just as there are some things that you might want to consider sacred and special to your relationship…something that public discussion can only cheapen, so are our Temple ceremonies; they are not secret, but they ARE sacred, and not your business…just as what happens between you and your husband is not MY business, and remains special…sacred…between the two of you.

Frankly, m’dear, your aghast and horrified reaction to what I said tells me that you, on some level, actually got the point…except of course for the fact that you obviously think sex should be kept secret because you believe it IS dirty and filthy. I believe it should be held in respect because it isn’t either one.

The point is, just as I do not have the right to force Rebecca (or you or anyone else) to publically discuss those most intimate and special moments of married life, nobody else has the right to demand that we talk about Temple matters outside Temple walls…OR demand that they be allowed entrance, or anything else. What happens in there is for us. It’s not for you, unless you do what must be done in order to get a recommend.

If you want to rehash the thing now, go right ahead, but frankly, m’dear, your bringing it up now is far more egregious a violation of decency than the post I wrote.
 
Really Diana, you should just let it go. Your posts in regards to this only get more vile.

VickiMonica said nothing about sex being dirty or vile, she said your post was. Which, you know very well is what you were trying to be, in order to make a point, which no one but you seems to get.
 
Another one that got missed. I guess it’s for you whyme - the others are MIA
What is the official ruling on the accuracy of the History of the Church vol 5?
Who was it written by?

Challenges with direct citation
Jessee cautions:

One of the challenges facing those who compiled the history was that of presenting the Prophet’s sermons and teachings. Since none of Joseph’s clerks had mastered shorthand during his lifetime, reports of what he said were made longhand. Many of these were smooth-flowing, well-connected summaries and were copied into the history almost as recorded. In some instances, however, it was necessary to reconstruct an address from brief notes and disconnected ideas. George A. Smith’s editorial work was careful, and when he was finished, each discourse was read to members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, some of whom had also heard the original address. Their (name removed by moderator)ut proved invaluable. These measures no doubt guaranteed the doctrinal accuracy of such reporting of Joseph Smith’s discourses, but the result obviously would not reflect his personality and speaking style as accurately as a verbatim report would have done.
An analysis of the History reveals those portions obtained from material written personally by Joseph Smith. These clearly reflect his loving and warm spirit. For example, the following is an entry from the History stemming from a portion of Joseph Smith’s 1835 diary written by himself:
“September 23. I was at home writing blessings for my most beloved brethren, but was hindered by a multitude of visitors. The Lord has blessed our souls this day, and may God grant to continue His mercies unto my house this night, for Christ’s sake. This day my soul has desired the salvation of Brother Ezra Thayer. Also Brother Noah Packard came to my house and loaned the committee one thousand dollars to assist building the house of the Lord. Oh! may God bless him a hundred fold, even of the things of the earth, for this righteous act. My heart is full of desire today, to be blessed of the God of Abraham with prosperity, until I shall be able to pay all my debts, for it is the delight of my soul to be honest. O Lord, that thou knowest right well. Help me, and I will give to the poor.” [8]
Conclusion
Jessee concluded:

The History will continue to be the most important source of information on the life of the Prophet and early Latter-day Saint history. Since the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve—some of whom were participants in the historical events—reviewed the history, it is reliable. It should be known that the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants are also recorded in the History of the Church and most assuredly are true and reliable.
It is important to realize that the content of the History of the Church is likely largely accurate, though it can of course be supplemented with other material to expand or correct it. Areas which may be less accurate are the precise wording attributed to Joseph Smith, or the ‘personality’ of some of the entries, especially the later ones written after his death. Though the History of the Church speaks in the first person as if Joseph were writing, these words are put in his mouth by admirers, often after his martyrdom. Thus, small details of Joseph’s “personality” in the History are less likely to be accurate.

en.fairmormon.org/History_of_the_Church/Authorship

You will need to read more of the link to get the full picture.
 
With all due respect, Vicki, this was handled elsewhere…and you are, quite frankly, considerably more over the line than I was. I was not comparing sex to religion. I was comparing something that I THOUGHT was very special, a sacred sort of communication between spouses…something that God gave us and something that is NOBODY ELSE"S BUSINESS, and is neither dirty, nor filthy, nor any of the other epithets you used, to how we feel about being riduculed and criticised for not wanting to discuss Temple matters outside Temple walls.

No, YOU were over the line…as you usually are.

My point was that, just as there are some things that you might want to consider sacred and special to your relationship…something that public discussion can only cheapen, so are our Temple ceremonies; they are not secret, but they ARE sacred, and not your business…just as what happens between you and your husband is not MY business, and remains special…sacred…between the two of you.

Actually, they are not secret OR sacred. Heck, they are almost identical to the Masonic ceremonies Joseph copied them from. Down to the secret handshakes and names, etc.

Frankly, m’dear, your aghast and horrified reaction to what I said tells me that you, on some level, actually got the point…except of course for the fact that you obviously think sex should be kept secret because you believe it IS dirty and filthy. I believe it should be held in respect because it isn’t either one.

Wow…let me get this straight…if someone thinks something should be kept private, it is dirty and filthy? Fine. Then by your definition, the temple veremonies and dirty and filthy. I am glad we have resolved that issue. Though iit was dirtier and filthier when they portrayed Catholic Priests and other ministers who wear collars as agents of satan, and when they forced women to swear to obey their husbands, and when they made everyone promise that would allow themselves to be killed if they talked about the temple…and the ways they allowed themselves to be killed would be by slicing open your neck, or slicing open your stomach.
 
I will find other articles, when I have time (not now), that I have read that indicated the statistical issue you raised about Utah is isolated to very tiny population areas in the state. These things have been able to be pin-pointed using the very techniques that led to the study you cited.
I’m thinking Parker bailed on us with this.

He’s been online several times since he posted this, but hasn’t come back to give references…🤷

Parker, if you’re out there, we’re still waiting for your references.
 
why me;6451415:
What is the official ruling on the accuracy of the History of the Church vol 5?
Who was it written by?

Challenges with direct citation
Jessee cautions:

Dean Jessee is my cousin
Well maybe you could ask him then. Is the History of the Church reliable, or not? As it seems he is telling us ‘no’ it is not reliable, but rely on it anyway.

Which come to think of it, LDS say the same of Smith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top