Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[ljam49]

Is that really an "excuse?"

That's kind of like Sally partaking in butt love in a particular state. Joe-Bob cop is peeping through the window, then busts in and arrests Sally.

Sally says, "That is not officially agianst the law."

Joe-Bob says, "That's not an excuse!"

:areyoucra



Oh my goodness BY had a goofy vision and thought it was divinely inspired and said goofy crap. On my ***** God call the firing squad. There is no history in the LDS church of witch burnings, inquisitions, boy raping in mass ridiculous amount, overthrowing kings and making church-states, etc...

Let's burn down the LDS church because they are the only ones who don't cower in the face of thier history, but instead admit it was skewed and is now amended in thier doctrine and the church evolves and the prophets realize new truths pertaining to our time. Oh my ***** God what are they thinking!!! Admit they were wrong and they know more now?! What a ridiculous thing for a church to do that is supposed to know the whole truth! Especially when that is only member personal opinion and there are mormon scriptures that direct otherwise! That they do acknowledge truth in other places, and encourage eternal progression... GASP!


Why am I even taking the time to reply agian? Someone smack me.


Right. Just like every other divinely inspired flawed human being that thinks they know everything because they get a glimpse of something true and real, and then think they know everything and everyone should bow before their ways.



Right... or they could just admit that they know more now, accept it, and move on, as they seem to be doing.

Let's burn down the LDS church because they are the only ones who don't cower in the face of thier history,

That's all they do. Deny. You have no clue what your talking about.

Why am I even taking the time to reply agian? Someone smack me.

Somebody please do. We have another person who is coming in interupting a post with their useless opinions. Maybe I need to ask Katspur into a private debate that won't involve all of the God haters that do nothing more than interject meaningless drivel that is not contributing to anything.

 

[McBell]

I didn't judge the Mormons, but i tell to others how I met them in a lot of different forums.

You didn't judge Mormons?
Your posts thus far do not reflect that.

If Mormons would say that they are just another church with normal people (even their prophets), it would be okay to me.But they said that they are the "true and only church",

What religious sect does not have at least one member who makes claims of their particular sect being the one true way?

Do you bash Catholics for it?
Do you bash Protestants for it?
Baptists?

and that Joseph Smith was almost perfect.

You must really hate the Muslims then.
Wonder if you bash them also...?

By the way, what is a "BS detector"?

It is short for Bull **** detector.

Bull **** Detectors are used to detect when some one is talking bull ****.

 

[McBell]

Maybe I need to ask Katspur into a private debate that won't involve all of the God haters that do nothing more than interject meaningless drivel that is not contributing to anything.

Good idea.
But then if you go by the rule you set above, how will you post without breaking it?

 

[Witch of Hope]

You didn't judge Mormons?
Your posts thus far do not reflect that.

What should i post then? Harmless stuff like "Mormons are Great" or, "they have a few mistakes, but they are almost okay"? Or should I post the truth? As former mormon I had to learn to hide my real thoughts and feelings/emotions, especially if they are not wanted by leaders. Adter my Coming out I swear that i tell the truth about this church, which mean i tell people the good and the bad sites of this church. And the topic here is the question, if Smith was a martyr or not. Let's go back to the thread.

What religious sect does not have at least one member who makes claims of their particular sect being the one true way?

Do you bash Catholics for it?
Do you bash Protestants for it?
Baptists?

If I know enough about this churches, and it would be another Thread, i would talk about them. But it woudn't be a bashing, it would be my knowledge and my thoughts about this churches. E.g. I grew up in a catholic area, and i know a little about this church, even their bad sites. And also about the (Southern) Baptists my sister Gina belong to (she live in Oklahoma and is a born again Christian).

You must really hate the Muslims then.
Wonder if you bash them also...?

I don't hate Muslims, and i don't hate Mormons, but thruth is truth, and is not changeable. I blame Mormons and muslims for the BAD things they have done, not for the GOOD things!

It is short for Bull **** detector.

Bull **** Detectors are used to detect when some one is talking bull ****.

LOL, that's "nice"! But I talk facts, not bull! (But i do like ******** on TV)!

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

Isn't it allowed to a wicca to speak bad about a religion? Yes, if they speak the truth.

You can speak whatever opinions you have. But how sure are you really that your perception is correct? What do you have to back up your view other than the observations of these Tanners people and your personal experience with the people? I know you probably scorn the church because of thier position on homosexuality... but that is not the topic here, and other than what I mentioned where else have you gathered your truth from to reach this conclusion?

Truth sometimes hurts, but it help us to grow.

True, and sometimes in the wrong direction too. Growth shouldn't stem from scorn.

 

[ljam49]

Neither the First nor the Second Council of Nicaea said anything about the canon of the Scriptures. And I've never seen 'an assembly of some Christian bishops held approximately in the 4th century is to say which Christian writings are the New Testament' in the Bible (nor 'the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction, referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts' for that matter).

That is just not true.

Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument.

Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21. This describes the results of the council. (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council). Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them. The letter is not quoted. There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor. The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics. Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.

Even if everything thing that conspired within Nicaea was not taken in, it had dramatic effects on what came about. The first Canon was actually the Muratorian Canon that was compiled in A.D. 170. This Canon included all of the NT books with the exception of Hebrews, James, and 3 John. This was further solidified through the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. With further study you will also find that through these councils that all was drawn together without a doubt that it was completed and error free. That was the whole objective.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

I didn't judge the Mormons, but i tell to others how I met them in a lot of different forums.
If Mormons would say that they are just another church with normal people (even their prophets), it would be okay to me.But they said that they are the "true and only church", and that Joseph Smith was almost perfect. He was it not. He was human. With all the good and bad stuff humans did.

That was my point. You are severly disenchanted and scorned by the members. So was I. Then I moved past it and realized that there was more than simply, the members. If it weren't for the people I would still go to church. ha ha. That kinda doesn't make any sense....

If there is something beautiful, people will always find a way to make it nasty. So I ignore the people and focus on the beauty that is there. All of it I don't think is beautiful of course or perfect, but nothing is so why harp on it?

That's all they do. Deny. You have no clue what your talking about.

Right cause I wasn't mormon or anything. That information I know nothing about, I say I know nothing about.

You are just mad cause I made a butt love analogy to explain the error in your self rightous judgement.

Maybe I need to ask Katspur into a private debate that won't involve all of the God haters that do nothing more than interject meaningless drivel that is not contributing to anything.

:drool: mmm... drivel and slobber... yum. You like it.

And, I am not a god-hater. You mormon-hater.

ha ha.

What should i post then? Harmless stuff like "Mormons are Great" or, "they have a few mistakes, but they are almost okay"? Or should I post the truth? As former mormon I had to learn to hide my real thoughts and feelings/emotions, especially if they are not wanted by leaders. Adter my Coming out I swear that i tell the truth about this church, which mean i tell people the good and the bad sites of this church. And the topic here is the question, if Smith was a martyr or not. Let's go back to the thread.

Yes the thread did get derailed a little. It got derailed due to the credibility of the sources used to back up the claim that Joseph Smith was a criminal, liar, and coward.

I don't hate Muslims, and i don't hate Mormons, but thruth is truth, and is not changeable. I blame Mormons and muslims for the BAD things they have done, not for the GOOD things!

I didn't think you hated mormons.

LOL, that's "nice"! But I talk facts, not bull! (But i do like ******** on TV)!

When I said that it does not mean to sharpen yourself as the source of information for what you say. I know you believe what you say. I know you are not telling lies from your own self. It means to be careful of the places where you get your information and form your ideas from. Like the Tanners people. You read untruths that resonate with your emotions and cause you grow the wrong direction. Then you speak untruths unknowingly. Sharpening your BS detector means checking your sources information, then checking it agian, and agian. Don't become concrete until you are 100% sure of the fact, checking many places to validate the information from which you formed your opinion and ideas.

 

[ljam49]

That was my point. You are severly disenchanted and scorned by the members. So was I. Then I moved past it and realized that there was more than simply, the members. If it weren't for the people I would still go to church. ha ha. That kinda doesn't make any sense....

If there is something beautiful, people will always find a way to make it nasty. So I ignore the people and focus on the beauty that is there. All of it I don't think is beautiful of course or perfect, but nothing is so why harp on it?



Right cause I wasn't mormon or anything. That information I know nothing about, I say I know nothing about.

You are just mad cause I made a butt love analogy to explain the error in your self rightous judgement.





:drool: mmm... drivel and slobber... yum. You like it.

And, I am not a god-hater. You mormon-hater.

ha ha.



Yes the thread did get derailed a little. It got derailed due to the credibility of the sources used to back up the claim that Joseph Smith was a criminal, liar, and coward.




I didn't think you hated mormons.



When I said that it does not mean to sharpen yourself as the source of information for what you say. I know you believe what you say. I know you are not telling lies from your own self. It means to be careful of the places where you get your information and form your ideas from. Like the Tanners people. You read untruths that resonate with your emotions and cause you grow the wrong direction. Then you speak untruths unknowingly. Sharpening your BS detector means checking your sources information, then checking it agian, and agian. Don't become concrete until you are 100% sure of the fact, checking many places to validate the information from which you formed your opinion and ideas.

You are just mad cause I made a butt love analogy to explain the error in your self rightous judgement.

I have not seen anything showing you explained any errors. Just your opinion. You do a good job of showing your inmaturity, and I could care less about your little filthy butt love anology. Its just pathetic. Problem is, I have not seen you (since your a knowledgable exmo) prove false what I posted. Everyone just denied and called a foul.

 

[McBell]

Everyone just denied and called a foul.

Then stop ignoring posts. #278

 

[Witch of Hope]

You can speak whatever opinions you have. But how sure are you really that your perception is correct?

Yeah, cause i need more than one source to know a fact. For example: The Tanners wrote from a Christian point of View, Mormons from a Mormon point of view. And scientists from another point, even former Mormons. And all this sources together bring the facts i share.
This way of thinking I learn as i work for my "company".
It means that I didn't use only one source.

 

[Sola'lor]

But they said that they are the "true and only church", and that Joseph Smith was almost perfect. He was it not. He was human. With all the good and bad stuff humans did.

Well I feel sorry for those mormons then. I don't think I've ever heard the term "true and only church" but I have heard the "only true church." While I believe that L-DS church contains a great deal of truth in it's doctrines I don't believe it contains 100% of what God wants us to have. Also I don't believe the L-DS church has a monopoly on truth. Truth is universal and not bound to a specific religion. The doctrine of the church is that not only Mormons will go to heaven. It may not be specifically mentioned in the teaching materials but it is true. Christ was not a Mormon, Moses was not a Mormon, Abraham was not a Mormon. And if they are going to heaven then it proves that the Mormon church does not have a monopoly on the path to heaven.

Also I have NEVER heard any Mormon say that Joseph Smith was almost perfect. Joseph Smith was a human just like the rest of us. He was imperfect like the rest of us. But if God chooses to give messages to mankind through other humans then God must choose an imperfect human to deliver the message.

What should i post then? Harmless stuff like "Mormons are Great" or, "they have a few mistakes, but they are almost okay"? Or should I post the truth? As former mormon I had to learn to hide my real thoughts and feelings/emotions, especially if they are not wanted by leaders.

Wow. I feel sorry for you. I've never had to hide my real thoughts or emotions.

Adter my Coming out I swear that i tell the truth about this church, which mean i tell people the good and the bad sites of this church. And the topic here is the question, if Smith was a martyr or not. Let's go back to the thread.

But it seems that instead of telling the good and bad about the church you are focusing on the bad and trying to show that the church is bad.

If I know enough about this churches, and it would be another Thread, i would talk about them. But it woudn't be a bashing, it would be my knowledge and my thoughts about this churches. E.g. I grew up in a catholic area, and i know a little about this church, even their bad sites. And also about the (Southern) Baptists my sister Gina belong to (she live in Oklahoma and is a born again Christian).

It's good to learn about churches.

I don't hate Muslims, and i don't hate Mormons, but thruth is truth, and is not changeable. I blame Mormons and muslims for the BAD things they have done, not for the GOOD things!

Why don't you blame individuals for what they do rather than blaming a whole group for the works of a few. I don't blame all muslims for acts of terrorism I blame the terrorists.

 

[McBell]

It means that I didn't use only one source.

Yet you only cite one source.

And no, stating that you got it from "Mormon sources" is not citing a source.

Further more, when even anti-Mormons say that the Tanners are an unreliable source...

 

[Katzpur]

Everything I had post is proofable. E.g. a simple question: How many different writings written by Joseph Smith, is known about the First Vision (4 as far as I know)?

Have you never written more than one account of a single event in your life, or even verbally recounted an event to several different people at different times in your life? If you have, you know as well as the next person that unless you have memorized the story and make a point of telling it vertabim each time, it's not going to be exactly the same each time. Sometimes you may remember to mention one thing. At other times, you may mention something else entirely. There may appear to be inconsistencies between your stories since your emphasis will change depend based upon your audience. Don't be a silly witch. You know that kind of thing happens all the time.

And a last question: How many changings are happen in the Book of Mormon since 1830 (over 3000 in this "most correct book on earth" most of them to change cause of changed doctrines)? Did you know that?

Uh... yes, I believe that juicy little tidbit has been mentioned about 3000 times by anti-Mormons and responded to about 3000 times by Mormons. But since you raise the question again, why don't we just start at the beginning of the most recent edition of the Book of Mormon and compate it to the 1830 edition, which is readily available to anyone who is interested in reading it. We can start on page 1 and identify as many of the 3000 changes to see how significant they really are. My guess is that after about the 10th one, people will be able to judge for themselves the extent to which they altered the essential doctrines in the book. You go first...

 

[Katzpur]

You have got to be kidding me!
Are you serious?

If this is the best you got, you better tuck tail now and go.

Now I understand it is easier for you Mormon bashers when you can pat each other on the back, but come on, if this is the best you got....

That's pretty good all right, particularly from someone who claims to know a lot about the Church. I wonder when the Tanners became the LDS Church's "own scholars."

 

[Katzpur]

I knew I would hit the nail on the head with the "that's not official doctrine" excuse.

How on earth is it "an excuse" for us to want to use our Church's official doctrine? What an absolutely stupid comment!

 

[Katzpur]

Every person has a past. And so do I. And as a former member of the LDS church i know a lot of this church.

If you really know a lot about the Church, you're lying. Of course, it's possible that you just think you know a lot about the Church.

 

[Sola'lor]

I read all 7 of the 1st vision accounts. So it's not like it's a surprise to me.

I wonder if adding verse numberings are included in their calculation of 3000 changes.

 

[McBell]

How on earth is it "an excuse" for us to want to use our Church's official doctrine? What an absolutely stupid comment!

Ah, come on now Katzpur.
How is it fair if you use actual Mormon Doctrine to refute his claims of what Mormon Doctrine is?

I mean come on!!
It isn't like this "debate" has been based upon fact or actual dictionary definitions.

 

[ljam49]

Have you never written more than one account of a single event in your life, or even verbally recounted an event to several different people at different times in your life? If you have, you know as well as the next person that unless you have memorized the story and make a point of telling it vertabim each time, it's not going to be exactly the same each time. Sometimes you may remember to mention one thing. At other times, you may mention something else entirely. There may appear to be inconsistencies between your stories since your emphasis will change depend based upon your audience. Don't be a silly witch. You know that kind of thing happens all the time.

Uh... yes, I believe that juicy little tidbit has been mentioned about 3000 times by anti-Mormons and responded to about 3000 times by Mormons. But since you raise the question again, why don't we just start at the beginning of the most recent edition of the Book of Mormon and compate it to the 1830 edition, which is readily available to anyone who is interested in reading it. We can start on page 1 and identify as many of the 3000 changes to see how significant they really are. My guess is that after about the 10th one, people will be able to judge for themselves the extent to which they altered the essential doctrines in the book. You go first...

Katspur should I be surprised that when I posted things from your religion earlier that are not disputable due to the fact that they are authorized writings of your church, your refused to answer them with the excuse that they were off subject. Judging by this post that is off subject, I don't think it would be out of place to say that the real reason you did not answer my post is because you have no defense and in actuality it looks to be proven by the fact that you are willing in this post to chase off subject matter here because you feel you can answer up for it.

Does not say much for those who fight so vehemitly for beliefs that they cannot back up?

 

[Witch of Hope]

Yet you only cite one source.

And no, stating that you got it from "Mormon sources" is not citing a source.

Further more, when even anti-Mormons say that the Tanners are an unreliable source...

I use a lot of sources, but I quote the source which I found it is best. For example: Did you know the following names:

Mösner
Raethel
Hauth?

They are Germans, noone would know them. All of them wrote books about the Mormons from a different point of view . Hauth is a protestant pastor, Mösner a historican and Raethel a professor for americanistic. They all had used for their books different sources, such as German web pages of former Mormons, Church publications (especially Journal of Discourses and Times and Seasons) and also the Tanner stuff.
So, what did you think is better? To use american or German stuff which i must translate first (and my english is lousy)?