Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Polaris]

I fail to find it as fascinating as you.

That's fine, have you read it?

I'm not a Christian, and don't really care what Jesus is purported to have said.

Then the OP probably doesn't really apply to you -- its based on the premise that Christ and the prophets truly spoke authoratively on the topic.

Just curious, do you believe Christ is a ficticious figure?

I don't find the Mormon history of bigotry, intercine murder, patriarchal sexism, anti-gay discrimination, forgery, polygamy, etc. etc. to be such a delicious fruit.

What Mormon history of bigotry?

Intercine, you mean internecine murder? When did Mormons slaughter themselves?

If you're referring to Mountain Meadow then I'd point out that was a single case of extremely poor actions by a local authority who abused his position. It had nothing to do with the fruits of Mormon doctrine or Joseph Smith.

Patriarchal sexism? You severely misunderstand the priesthood then.

Anti-gay discrimination? We welcome all people in our church.

Forgery? Not sure what you're referring to here -- probably another isolated case of human weakness that has nothing to do with the fruits of Mormon doctrine and Joseph Smith.

Polygamy? Can you prove that what Joseph did was abusive or selfish.

 

[Autodidact]

I'd think one over actually. More and more archeology is coming out with findings that don't prove the Book of Mormon false. You should really discuss this with Deepshadow or take a look at some of the evidence. I'm not asking you to believe in, just take a look.

You mean like the horses, cattle, barley, wheat, chariots, steel that archeologists have found in the Americas, not to mention the DNA evidence linking the inhabitants to the ancient Israelites...not?

 

[Bishka]

You mean like the horses, cattle, barley, wheat, chariots, steel that archeologists have found in the Americas, not to mention the DNA evidence linking the inhabitants to the ancient Israelites...not?

Have you actually read anything on it by FARMS or FAIR?

FARMS

FAIR

Take a look, you might actually be pleasantly surprised.

 

[KingM]

Have you actually read anything on it by FARMS or FAIR?

FARMS

FAIR

Take a look, you might actually be pleasantly surprised.

With all due respect, those are apologists. They know the answer, now they're looking for evidence to support it. Most people need to see independent, peer-reviewed research to believe this sort of claim.

Too me, some of the most damning criticisms of the Book of Mormon focus on those areas where the Book of Mormon repeats word for word things such as The Sermon on the Mount from the King James Version of the Bible. Now, you could argue that Jesus gave the same sermon, but why does the Book of Mormon include the same translation errors that exist in the KJV, but not in original Greek manuscripts and have now been more accurately translated in modern versions of the Bible?

 

[Autodidact]

That's fine, have you read it?

I confess. I couldn't slog through the whole thing. I've read enough to get the flavor:
And it came to pass...exceedingly...that we...did speak...but they hardened their hearts...indeed, they were stiff-necked, so it came to pass, yeah, verily it did come to pass that the Lord...did destroy the wicked, and so it came to pass that the Nephites did prosper exceedingly..and it came to pass that x number of years passed away...but I do not write more, for the plates are small...

Then the OP probably doesn't really apply to you -- its based on the premise that Christ and the prophets truly spoke authoratively on the topic.

And here I thought it was for general religious debate.

Just curious, do you believe Christ is a ficticious figure?

Christ, yes. Yeshua, probably not.

What Mormon history of bigotry?

Are you joking? Much too long to chronicle here. This sort of thing:
"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young).

Intercine, you mean internecine murder? When did Mormons slaughter themselves?

You know that whole blood atonement thing. Like Brenda Lafferty, Anna Pulitzer, Joel LeBaron, that sort of thing.

If you're referring to Mountain Meadow then I'd point out that was a single case of extremely poor actions by a local authority who abused his position. It had nothing to do with the fruits of Mormon doctrine or Joseph Smith.

How about Brigham Young?

Patriarchal sexism? You severely misunderstand the priesthood then.

Show us, don't tell us.

Anti-gay discrimination? We welcome all people in our church.

Despite their abominable sin.

Forgery? Not sure what you're referring to here -- probably another isolated case of human weakness that has nothing to do with the fruits of Mormon doctrine and Joseph Smith.

You're not familiar with Mark Hoffman? I recommend Salamander. Good book.

Polygamy? Can you prove that what Joseph did was abusive or selfish.[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

Have you actually read anything on it by FARMS or FAIR?

FARMS

FAIR

Take a look, you might actually be pleasantly surprised.

I rely on mainstream, recognized archeologists, antrhopologists, paleontologists and other scientists for my information.

 

[Autodidact]

Polygamy? Can you prove that what Joseph did was abusive or selfish.

O.K., so we agree on the polygamy thing. Again, I'm just not as enthusiastic about those fruits as you are. Further, I disagree that fruits are the measure. Dalai Lama has great fruits--are you buying his religion?

 

[Bishka]

You know that whole blood atonement thing. Like Brenda Lafferty

The men who committed this crime were excommunicated from the Church before they committed the crime. Next.

Joel LeBaron,

Funny, this guy was a fundamentalist, not actually a Mormon. Nice try though.

 

[Bishka]

I rely on mainstream, recognized archeologists, antrhopologists, paleontologists and other scientists for my information.

Have you even looked at those sites?

Would you care to discuss what you read there?

 

[Polaris]

I confess. I couldn't slog through the whole thing. I've read enough to get the flavor:

Then you're not really in a position to comment on it's theologically and logistically complex nature.

Are you joking? Much too long to chronicle here. This sort of thing:
"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young).

Again you misunderstand what the priesthood is. Brigham Young also taught that men of African descent are children of God and therefore potential heirs to God. Don't you find it odd that such a "bigoted" chruch teaches that blacks can become gods? Doesn't sound bigoted to me.

You know that whole blood atonement thing. Like Brenda Lafferty, Anna Pulitzer, Joel LeBaron, that sort of thing.

Nice try. These are incidents concerning the FLDS church which is an apostate slinter group of Mormonism. Joseph and Mormonism have no such blood atonement doctrine.

How about Brigham Young?

Nope.

Despite their abominable sin.

None of us are without sin.

Again, I'm just not as enthusiastic about those fruits as you are.

You mean the misconstrued fruits that you picked that represent independent and largely isloated events?

 

[Autodidact]

The men who committed this crime were excommunicated from the Church before they committed the crime. Next.



Funny, this guy was a fundamentalist, not actually a Mormon. Nice try though.

And I suppose he wasn't a true Scotsman either? Remember, we're talking fruits here, not whether it had a Tabernacle seal on it.

 

[Autodidact]

Have you even looked at those sites?

Would you care to discuss what you read there?

I didn't even know they existed. I clicked on FARM. Got any mainstream, reputable archeological evidence in support of any of this? Like, say, from mon-Mormon scholars? Or do you think all the archeologists are so prejudiced against Mormons that they suppressed the actual findings of horses pulling chariots across the plains?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., let's start with one thing at a time. Blood atonement. Here's what wiki says about Brigham Young on the subject:

Brigham Young's first recorded teachings on the blood atonement doctrine were in 1845, when Young had stepped into the shoes of Joseph Smith, Jr., the previous theocratic leader who had been assassinated in 1844. That year, he was said to have approved of a Mormon being killed by an unknown assailant in Nauvoo, Illinois, an act he characterized as "a deed of charity" because "he might now possibly be redeemed in the eternal world" (Smith 1845). In the Salt Lake valley, Young maintained a Council of Fifty composed of religious leaders as a kind of legislature, but this body's power was limited (Quinn 1997, pp. 262–63). In 1849, as Young and the Council of Fifty were drafting a plan for a proposed State of Deseret, Young spoke to the Council about what to do with thieves, murderers, and adulterers, and said, "I want their cursed heads to be cut off that they may atone for their crimes".[31] The Council voted the next day that an imprisoned man "had forfeited his head" and to "dispose of him privately" (March 4 entry). Two weeks later, Young recommended decapitation for the man and a fellow prisoner, but the Council decided to let them live.[32] Later in 1851, the General Assembly of the State of Deseret, picked by the Council of Fifty, adopted a capital punishment provision allowing decapitation as a means of execution, which would remain in force until 1888 (Gardner 1979, p. 13).
In a speech before the Utah Territory legislature on February 5, 1852, Young appeared to be arguing for a law requiring decapitation for whites "condemned by the Law" for miscegenation with black people (Young 1852).[33] He told the legislature that miscegenation was a grave sin that would bring a curse upon a man and his children produced by the union (Young 1852). He said that if a white Mormon "in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression", decapitation "would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin…it would do them good that they might be saved with their Bre[theren]" (Young 1852). He said, "It is the greatest blessing that could come to some men to shed their blood on the ground, and let it come up before the Lord as an atonement" (Young 1852).



Do you disagree? How and why? (Note the cute little historical racism as well.)

 

[SoyLeche]

Or do you think all the archeologists are so prejudiced against Mormons that they suppressed the actual findings of horses pulling chariots across the plains?

I think it's a lot more likely that the words translated into English as "horses" and "chariots" don't actually mean what we think of when we say "horses" and "chariots". That happens quite often when going from one ecosystem/culture to another.

The egyptians didn't have "corn" like I'm used to thinking of corn either, and yet my KJV tells me they did.

I've stated before - people are going to have to give up a lot of their preconceived notions about what the BoM says in order for it to meet what archeology will find. Archeology will back up the BoM, but not necessarily the straw man version that most people (including most Mormons) currently believe in.

 

[Polaris]

Do you disagree? How and why?

Yes, I disagree. Brigham Young is talking about capital punishment to serve as a form of self-atoning punishment. He seems to be arguing that for serious offenses capital punishment can be used to help the guilty serve a greater payment for their crimes while in mortality, therefore potentially reducing the punishment that would be required after this life. Whether this is something based on his own personal opinion or revelation from God is unknown. Subsequent prophets have not taught this position so I'm inclined to believe that it was more the former.

The examples that you provided were very different. They were cases where certain "vigilantees" took judgement into their own hands and peformed murder. Brigham proposed a law-based capital punishment.

 

[Autodidact]

I think it's a lot more likely that the words translated into English as "horses" and "chariots" don't actually mean what we think of when we say "horses" and "chariots". That happens quite often when going from one ecosystem/culture to another.

The egyptians didn't have "corn" like I'm used to thinking of corn either, and yet my KJV tells me they did.

I've stated before - people are going to have to give up a lot of their preconceived notions about what the BoM says in order for it to meet what archeology will find. Archeology will back up the BoM, but not necessarily the straw man version that most people (including most Mormons) currently believe in.

Translated into English from what? Non-existent discredited bogus phony "Reformed Egyptian?"

Kinda nifty, that. When it's shown to be completely wrong, you just decide that it meant something else in the first place. For example, my holy book, which is inerrant, says that dogs have trunks. Of course, the word "trunks" is a mistranslation from Reformed Yugoslavian meaning "tails."

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I disagree. Brigham Young is talking about capital punishment to serve as a form of self-atoning punishment. He seems to be arguing that for serious offenses capital punishment can be used to help the guilty serve a greater payment for their crimes while in mortality, therefore potentially reducing the punishment that would be required after this life. Whether this is something based on his own personal opinion or revelation from God is unknown. Subsequent prophets have not taught this position so I'm inclined to believe that it was more the former.

The examples that you provided were very different. They were cases where certain "vigilantees" took judgement into their own hands and peformed murder. Brigham proposed a law-based capital punishment.

Yeah, those really serious sins, like miscegenation. I agree, if a white person married a black person, the right thing to do is to cut their head off.

 

[Polaris]

Yeah, those really serious sins, like miscegenation. I agree, if a white person married a black person, the right thing to do is to cut their head off.

Your cynical and arrogant tone is getting irritating. You don't have to agree with Mormons, but at least you could attempt to discuss the issues you have with some amount of respect.

Brigham was referring to intra-racial fornication, not marriage, hence the statement "in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression". Granted it was still an extremely harsh punishment -- Brigham tended to take a more hardline OT approach to punishment for sins like that. Again this is something that was really only expressed by Brigham and was likely based more on his opinions than on revealed doctrine or policy.

 

[Autodidact]

Your cynical and arrogant tone is getting irritating. You don't have to agree with Mormons, but at least you could attempt to discuss the issues you have with some amount of respect.

Brigham was referring to intra-racial fornication, not marriage, hence the statement "in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression". Granted it was still an extremely harsh punishment -- Brigham tended to take a more hardline OT approach to punishment for sins like that. Again this is something that was really only expressed by Brigham and was likely based more on his opinions than on revealed doctrine or policy.

So you also consider miscegnation to be a sin?

As to it being only his opinion, not doctrine, you would then disagree with him when he said,

"I am here to give this people, called Latter-day Saints, counsel to direct them in the path of life...If there is any elder here, or any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Brigham Young -Journal of Discourses, 16:161).

Here's the whole passage:

In the preisthood I will tell you what it will do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood upon themselves but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. Would this be to curse them? no it would be a blessing to them. -- it would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shuder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, allthough the true principles of it are not understood.

And here you said Brigham Young did not espouse blood atonement. Do you agree or disagree with him when he said:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins"

How about: On February 8, 1857, Young said, regarding apostates, that "if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them"

And as for Young's racist doctrines:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privelege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot hold one partical of power in Government. The the subjects, the rightfull servants of the resedue of the children of Adam, and the resedue of the children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will they should receive the spirit of God by Baptisam; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.
...
What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment I will will call them a counsel.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Brigham Young

Remember, we were talking here about fruits. The fruits of Joseph Smith's writings, being so good, demonstrated their truth, their prophetic nature. But what of these fruits? What do they indicate?
[/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I disagree. Brigham Young is talking about capital punishment to serve as a form of self-atoning punishment. He seems to be arguing that for serious offenses capital punishment can be used to help the guilty serve a greater payment for their crimes while in mortality, therefore potentially reducing the punishment that would be required after this life. Whether this is something based on his own personal opinion or revelation from God is unknown. Subsequent prophets have not taught this position so I'm inclined to believe that it was more the former.

The examples that you provided were very different. They were cases where certain "vigilantees" took judgement into their own hands and peformed murder. Brigham proposed a law-based capital punishment.

My point is about fruits. Some people, reading Joseph Smith's works, took them as an authorization, even a directive, to slit other people's throats. You may disagree with them, but they still have to be included as fruits, however rotten.