Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[Katzpur]

I will disagree due to the fact that the Bible does not come close to teaching that.

You've really gotten yourself in deep this time, ljam. There are numerous occasions in the Bible where God expressly orders people to kill other people, sometimes for things so trivial as working on the Sabbath. I can post some of them for you, but I can't believe you're unaware of them.

Again no escape clause. The Bible does not state that God would be proud of you and ready to pat you on the back because you stood up and took a pistol and killed someone while they were trying to kill you. This really says alot about those Christians martyrs that did not fight back. They felt blessed to die for their belief in God.

Oh for crying out loud! For starters, they didn't have the means to fight back. Joseph didn't take a gun into that jail with the intent to kill anyone. Someone gave it to him, and when attacked, he fought back. Joseph Smith had a family and an entire Church that needed him. Maybe you feel that God is going to condemn him for fighting for his life, but I don't. This is a point on which we're simply not going to disagree.

 

[ljam49]

Katzpur

The reason anti-Mormons use this label is to demean the Latter-day Saint position.

As far as I am concerned this does not apply to what I say. I do not say or use anything from the Bible to demean a single human being. When I say that Mormons are polythiestic it is to describe what they say they believe.

I guess that in your own mind, you've scored a few points, even if is is by misrepresenation.

I have no need and find no pleasure in thinking if I say this or that it will score me some points. To me this is not a game of monoply where I try to win. We are discussing eternal matters.

What I mind is the intent with which people apply those labels. If it is intended to mislead, which it almost always is, it's dishonest, plain and simple.

I have not applied the term polytheistic in any untruthful way. It defines the LDS thought on God.If you can show me something in any post I have made that tried to use this term to deceive I will be glad to retract the statement with an apology.

The word "monotheistic" is never used in the Bible.

This is true. It is not used in the Bible. Again it was a term I used to describe the Christians thought on God. Same way as I used the term to describe polytheistic thoughts on God by Mormons. I did not use either term in a dishonest manner.

We Latter-day Saints clearly do worship a Father, Son and Holy Ghost who are "one" in the way in which the Bible explains their unity. We don't believe that they are all parts of a single, indivisible substance, but then the Bible doesn't say they are either.

This is where we split ways. John chapter 14 goes pretty indepth describing the relationship of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and how they are all in each other.

If it makes some Christians feel superior by saying we're polytheistic and they're not, I guess they just need that added assurance that they're better than the next guy.

I cannot speak for other Christians, but speak for myself and say that I do not ever try to acknowledge the truth of scripture to place myself above others. Evangelical Christians find it impossible to say we should let the BoM be the standard by which the truths of the Bible are verified. The oldest known texts for the Bible date back to 1000 bc. The BoM claims a historical date of 600 bc. Mormons want Christians to believe a book that was written and dispersed 190 years ago and use it to prove that the Bible is not translated correctly. If logic was to speak up, it would say the opposite. With the Bible and its concepts coming first, then the BoM's truth should be judged by the Bible.

 

[SoyLeche]

Reading ljam49 posts gives me a good reminder why I stopped bothering to try and talk to anti's on these forums. There's only so much :banghead3 I can take. I especially have no desire to take the time and effort to try and understand another person's point of view when they obviously have no intention of returning the favor.

Katz may not believe me, but she seems to have MUCH more patience than I do recently. Keep at it if you feel there is any benefit (even if it's just your personal enjoyment).

And, before you ask - no, I don't have anything constructive I want to add to the discussion.

 

[challupa]

I cannot speak for other Christians, but speak for myself and say that I do not ever try to acknowledge the truth of scripture to place myself above others. Evangelical Christians find it impossible to say we should let the BoM be the standard by which the truths of the Bible are verified. The oldest known texts for the Bible date back to 1000 bc. The BoM claims a historical date of 600 bc. Mormons want Christians to believe a book that was written and dispersed 190 years ago and use it to prove that the Bible is not translated correctly. If logic was to speak up, it would say the opposite. With the Bible and its concepts coming first, then the BoM's truth should be judged by the Bible.

I need to ask something now. Why is it not possible for God to speak now? What if the ancient people were not adequately evolved intellectually or spiritually to get God's filtered message right. Wouldn't you think he might try again and again throughout the ages to get the message across to mankind? Why are we taking forgranted that what was said 3000 years ago by a small middle east tribe is the accurate final revelation? As humanity matures, they understand more. If there is a god, I would think he would know this and try to update us as we mature. Somewhat like how we revise our conversations with our children as they mature. Just my thoughts on this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I need to ask something now. Why is it not possible for God to speak now? What if the ancient people were not adequately evolved intellectually or spiritually to get God's filtered message right. Wouldn't you think he might try again and again throughout the ages to get the message across to mankind?

It seems to me that the majority of Chrsitians do think this. For instance, Catholics believe that the Pope continues to receive inspiration from God to guide the Church, Mormons believe in ongoing revelation from God to their prophets, and the Quakers are so into the idea that Christ continues to speak that they even let him run their meetings.

AFAICT, it's only the Sola Scriptura Protestants who hold to the idea that God's message is static.

 

[LittleNipper]

There were no civil laws in America at that time prohibiting polygamy either, LittleNipper. They were not established until some time later.

Joseph Smith was murdered -- not by a group of "anti-Mormons," but by men whose wives and daughters he had tried to ruin! When the jail was stormed, Joseph Smith used a handgun to kill two men and wound another. JESUS was never accused of improprieties with women. JESUS was never a party to developments that failed. JESUS never took His follower's money in some promotional scheme that was doomed from the start. JESUS never led His followers from one location to another. The kingdom of CHRIST is not of this world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

JESUS was never a party to developments that failed.

Depends on your point of view.

JESUS never took His follower's money in some promotional scheme that was doomed from the start.

No, but IMO Acts describes the Apostles doing something close to that.

JESUS never led His followers from one location to another.

He didn't? What Bible have you been reading?

 

[LittleNipper]

I need to ask something now. Why is it not possible for God to speak now? What if the ancient people were not adequately evolved intellectually or spiritually to get God's filtered message right. Wouldn't you think he might try again and again throughout the ages to get the message across to mankind? Why are we taking forgranted that what was said 3000 years ago by a small middle east tribe is the accurate final revelation? As humanity matures, they understand more. If there is a god, I would think he would know this and try to update us as we mature. Somewhat like how we revise our conversations with our children as they mature. Just my thoughts on this.

GOD being perfect has said everything HE needs to say. It is finished. We do not mature. We degenerate, as society sinks deeper into accepting sin as the ideal. The last days will be exactly as it was in the days of Noah. And judgment will follow.

 

[LittleNipper]

Depends on your point of view.


No, but IMO Acts describes the Apostles doing something close to that.


He didn't? What Bible have you been reading?

JESUS paid it all. HE has already saved everyone HE intended to be saved, the day HE died on the cross. And HE sealed their future eternity by rising from the dead.

Jesus never traveled more than 100 miles from His birthplace during His three year ministry . . . yet His life has changed the world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

JESUS paid it all. HE has already saved everyone HE intended to be saved, the day HE died on the cross. And HE sealed their future eternity by rising from the dead.

Great. So why is there still a Church, then? If all the work is done, exactly what do you do on Sunday mornings?

Jesus never traveled more than 100 miles from His birthplace during His three year ministry . . . yet His life has changed the world.

Going by the Gospels, he got shooed from town to town by a lot of unhappy people over the course of that ministry, though. And he told his disciples to travel out over the world.

 

[ljam49]

GOD being perfect has said everything HE needs to say. It is finished. We do not mature. We degenerate, as society sinks deeper into accepting sin as the ideal. The last days will be exactly as it was in the days of Noah. And judgment will follow.

This I agree with. I can say that the Bapists stance on this is when the last book of the Bible was written by John, the last survivor of the original 12, the canon closed. The Word from God was completed and nothing would be added to it from that point. Even if man thinks he gets smarter or his ability to assimilate information gets better, God's truth is what it is and needs no further clarification. There is no need for a new gospel that's plain to understand. I personally know from my own studies and others that study the Bible, that there is no way you can truely learn even a portion of the Bible in a life time.

 

[McBell]

This I agree with. I can say that the Bapists stance on this is when the last book of the Bible was written by John, the last survivor of the original 12, the canon closed. The Word from God was completed and nothing would be added to it from that point. Even if man thinks he gets smarter or his ability to assimilate information gets better, God's truth is what it is and needs no further clarification. There is no need for a new gospel that's plain to understand. I personally know from my own studies and others that study the Bible, that there is no way you can truely learn even a portion of the Bible in a life time.

that is a nice little belief to have.
To bad the Bible does not support it.

One would think that a preacher of three years would know that.

 

[ljam49]

that is a nice little belief to have.
To bad the Bible does not support it.

One would think that a preacher of three years would know that.

Since you are godless, you speak of things of which you do not understand.

I Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man (unsaved, godless), does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them (only believers do), because they are spiritually appraised (those unsaved, godless are spiritually dead, thereby disqualified).

Not my words, but the Bibles.

 

[Zadok]

Why do the LDS claim that Joseph Smith is a Martyr? Joseph Smith had a gun in the Carthage Jail as it all started and unloaded 6 shots out of his gun, of which 2-3 people were hit by his shots. A martyr is one that willingly and without any resistance gives their lives for what they believe in. Joseph Smith does not show by his actions to be a martyr.

The concept of a martyr is someone that submits to death for a cause. Joseph went the Carthage on his own accord believing that if he did so he would die. He could have denounced his cause and avoided death. Thus he willing submitted to death. The small caliber pistol was given to him by the jailer which fled the jail for his own life. It is important to note that Joseph used the small pistol for protection of his associates as much as for himself. The accusation that Joseph is not a martyr because he defended himself is to say that anyone that proclaims themselves innocent and makes any appeal for justice cannot be considered a martyr because they sought protections and therefore did not die willingly. I find such notions most condescending.

There is no question that Joseph was attracted and killed for the cause of his faith and belief in G-d. To imply that Joseph was not murdered in cold blood is absurd. Those involved did so without justification of law and without sense of protecting themselves from the small postol but in every sense of the concept of premeditated murder.

Zadok

 

[sojourner]

This I agree with. I can say that the Bapists stance on this is when the last book of the Bible was written by John, the last survivor of the original 12, the canon closed. The Word from God was completed and nothing would be added to it from that point. Even if man thinks he gets smarter or his ability to assimilate information gets better, God's truth is what it is and needs no further clarification. There is no need for a new gospel that's plain to understand. I personally know from my own studies and others that study the Bible, that there is no way you can truely learn even a portion of the Bible in a life time.

The person that wrote Revelation was not one of the original 12. It's unlikely that the gospel authors knew Jesus personally, as well. And the canon didn't close until 400 years following the death of Christ. Somehow, I don't think one of the original 12 lasted that long.

God's truth is what it is, but our understanding of it has developed over time, in order to better clarify what we cannot understand fully right now.

While it is true that God has retreated into the background, so that humanity might have a chance to speak, God has spoken at times. Through people like MLK, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and others.

 

[ljam49]

sojourner

You stated:

The person that wrote Revelation was not one of the original 12. It's unlikely that the gospel authors knew Jesus personally, as well. And the canon didn't close until 400 years following the death of Christ. Somehow, I don't think one of the original 12 lasted that long.

Early tradition unanimously identify John as the Apostle John. Important second century witnesses to the Apostle John's authorship include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Many of the book's original readers were still alive during the lifetimes of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and both of them supported apostolic authorship. Modern Evangelical scholars are in agreement that this John is the same that wrote the Gospel of John and the three Epistles. My beliefs stay in line with this. For me there is no doubt this is the Apostle John, one of the original 12.

The closing of the Canon was finished at the Council of Carthage in 387 AD.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

GOD being perfect has said everything HE needs to say.

In a way, I agree with this. I mean, it's not like he would keep all the best parts of his Gospel hidden, only to bring it all out at the last days to an elect few. God's message has not changed since the beginning of this world. What has changed is the people. Over and over God sends prophets to teach the people. Over and over the people reject his message, thinking they've already heard it all. Look at the prophets in the Bible. Most of them were rejected by people who considered themselves members of God's church. It's just history repeating itself. It's not that God has anything new to say, it's that we can't hold on to his message for long without changing the doctrines and falling away. There is nothing unique about rejecting prophets. Every new generation thinks they're different (Mathew 23:30). There are just some people who can't accept that God can speak to man directly.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner

You stated:



Early tradition unanimously identify John as the Apostle John. Important second century witnesses to the Apostle John's authorship include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Many of the book's original readers were still alive during the lifetimes of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and both of them supported apostolic authorship. Modern Evangelical scholars are in agreement that this John is the same that wrote the Gospel of John and the three Epistles. My beliefs stay in line with this. For me there is no doubt this is the Apostle John, one of the original 12.

The closing of the Canon was finished at the Council of Carthage in 387 AD.

387 is nearly 400 years later. No person could have lived that long. Scholars agree that, despite the early date and authorship prescribed by early Christian writers, the book was probably written over a number of years and not completed in its present form until the end of the first or early second century.
On the basis of both the literary style and theological emphasis, it's unlikely that he wrote either the gospel, or the letters of John. The association of the name "John" with these five documents does encourage the view that all five may have been produced by a Johanine community.

For me, there is great doubt that this is the apostle John.

 

[McBell]

Since you are godless, you speak of things of which you do not understand.

You go right ahead and tell yourself whatever you have to in order to feel good about yourself.

I Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man (unsaved, godless), does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them (only believers do), because they are spiritually appraised (those unsaved, godless are spiritually dead, thereby disqualified).

Not my words, but the Bibles.

What does this have to do with the fact that the Bible does not support your claim of closed canon?

 

[ljam49]

You go right ahead and tell yourself whatever you have to in order to feel good about yourself.


What does this have to do with the fact that the Bible does not support your claim of closed canon?

Not so:

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.