“It is by no means improbable that some future textbook… will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.” Josiah Quincy, Jr., Figures of the Past, 1883
The above quote is oft used in Mormondom to impress people with a notable non-Mormon’s positive opinion of Joseph Smith. It can be found in numerous Mormon videos shown at LDS Visitors Centers. It is included in books about the “Prophet.” Most recently it was highlighted at Mormon Times in an article titled “Joseph Smith ‘most influential’ 19th century American.”
I found that Josiah Quincy’s book, Figures of the Past, is available online, so I read Mr. Quincy’s entire chapter on Joseph Smith and did a little additional research.
Josiah Quincy, Jr. visited Nauvoo in mid-May, 1844. His travelling companion was Charles Francis Adams, Sr., son and grandson of two American presidents. Being deemed important visitors, these men were received and welcomed by Joseph Smith. Mr. Quincy wrote:
Intelligence of our arrival had in some mysterious manner reached General Smith, and the prophet’s own chariot, a comfortable carryall, drawn by two horses, soon made its appearance. It is probable that we owed the alacrity with which we were served to an odd blunder which had combined our names and personalities and set forth that no less a man than ex-President John Quincy Adams had arrived to visit Mr. Joseph Smith.
After spending a day with the Prophet, Josiah Quincy wrote his impressions in a journal. Later he wrote about the visit in letters to friends. Later still he compiled his impressions into a chapter for his book. The chapter began with the now-famous quote; Josiah Quincy was impressed by Joseph Smith. But if all that he wrote in his book is considered, Josiah Quincy was not favorably impressed.
Mr. Quincy referred to the religious system of Mormonism as being comprised of “monstrous claims” (383). He said the sect created by Joseph Smith was filled with “demoralizing doctrines” (377). Quincy noted several times that Joseph Smith apparently thought very highly of himself and thought himself quite clever. Speaking of himself as the militia commander of 3,000 men, Smith reportedly explained,
“I decided that the commander of my troops ought to be a lieutenant-general, and I was, of course, chosen to that position. I sent my certificate of election to Governor Ford, and received in return a commission of lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo Legion and of the militia of the State of Illinois. Now, on examining the Constitution of the United States, I find that an officer must be tried by a court-martial composed of his equals in rank; and as I am the only lieutenant-general in the country, I think they will find it pretty hard to try me.” (383-384)
When Joseph Smith talked about theology and his ability as Master of languages, Josiah Quincy wrote,
Smith was well versed in the letter of the Scriptures, though he had little comprehension of their spirit. He began by denying the doctrine of the Trinity, and supported his views by the glib recitation of a number of texts…The degrees and orders of ecclesiastical dignitaries he set forth with great precision, being careful to mention the interesting revelation which placed Joseph Smith supreme above them all…The prophet referred to his miraculous gift of understanding all languages, and took down a Bible in various tongues, for the purpose of exhibiting his accomplishments in this particular. Our position as guests prevented our testing his powers by a rigid examination, and the rendering of a few familiar texts seemed to be accepted by his followers as a triumphant demonstration of his abilities. It may have been an accident, but I observed that the bulk of his translations were from the Hebrew, which, presumably, his visitors did not understand, rather than from the classical languages, in which they might more easily have caught him tripping. (385-386)
Perhaps the most concise and clearly stated opinion Mr. Quincy formed of the Prophet Joseph Smith is found following Quincy’s praise of the beautiful city of Nauvoo. He wrote,
And all the diligent workers, who had reared these handsome stores and comfortable dwellings, bowed in subjection to the man to whose unexampled absurdities we had listened that morning. Not quite unexampled either. For many years I held a trusteeship which required me to be a frequent visitor at the McLean Asylum for the Insane. I had talked with some of its unhappy inmates, victims of the sad but not uncommon delusion that each had received the appointment of vicegerent of the Deity upon earth. It is well known that such unfortunates, if asked to explain their confinement, have a ready reply: ‘I am sane. The rest of the world is mad, and the majority is against me.’ It was like a dream to find one’s self moving through a prosperous community, where the repulsive claim of one of these pretenders was respectfully acknowledged. It was said that Prince Hamlet had no need to recover his wits when he was despatched [sic] to England, for the demented denizens of that island would never detect his infirmity. If the blasphemous assumptions of Smith seemed like the ravings of a lunatic, he had, at least, brought them to a market where ‘all the people were as mad as he.’ (388-389)
Josiah Quincy’s travelling companion also wrote of this 1844 visit with the Prophet. Though his recollections are not as detailed as Quincy’s, Charles Francis Adams wrote this in his diary:
There is a mixture of shrewdness and extravagant self-conceit, of knowledge and ignorance, of wisdom and folly in this whole system of this man that I am somewhat at a loss to find definitions for it. Yet it is undoubted that he has gained followers at home and abroad…On the whole I was glad I had been [to see Joseph Smith]. Such a man is a study not for himself, but as serving to show what turns the human mind will sometimes take. And herafter [sic] if I should live, I may compare the results of this delusion with the condition in which I saw it and its mountebank apostle.
Such was the “powerful influence” these respected visitors found in Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Hank, why do you have an issue with that statement? I appreciate that you have an issue with it, but why?
You also state Smith had no power. What an interesting statement. In all seriousness, do you believe that Smith had no power?
You then, almost contradictorilly to the charge that Smith had no power, say that he was never given credit for power. I am really confused as to what you are saying– if had power, or if he was just never given credit for it.
If he was never given credit for it, is that a sign of his being modest and that he was acting on behalf of God, or should he have gotten it? Or is that he, like you said earlier, in actuality had no power.
But all of that really doesn’t help me understand what you don’t like about my comment that you have to prop up Smith and his progeny. If you’d like more of an explanation as to why that is and why I don’t have to do that with Luther or Calvin, or any other Christian leader, let me know.
MichaelP,
Do you know the controversy about the question “was Jesus ever angry?” Many of the big textual critics argue and have pretty good evidence that the New Testament text was modified to claim Jesus was angry when the original text said no such thing. Their arguments are quite compelling.
I always find it interesting when evangelicals say that no differences or changes in the NT manuscripts result in doctrinal “changes” or issues. It seems such an uninformed opinion.
grindael- your post is a good example of enormous assumptions trumping critical thinking. You obviously buy into the grand conspiracy theory of the church- the church is deceiving people and has all along. Does a physician lie to a patient if he or she does not disclose his full understanding of every molecule and cell in the body? Does the Bible lie because it does not disclose the bathroom habits of the apostles? Critics love to rip on Pres. Packer for saying that some details are not worth the time to fully explore. If this is indeed Christ’s church, I think He would want His servants concentrating on the most important truths of salvation rather than go toe to toe with every apostate and critic with a gripe.
I have a thought or question for you and the other LDS critics- What has been the practical result of the revelations that came through Joseph Smith? Or put differently, what practices of daily life seen in faithful LDS should be condemned? What do members of the church do in their lives that is deserving of criticism (I am in no way claiming perfection for any of us). Forget about the doctrinal and theological issues between us for a moment. (The knee jerk response is of course- “worshipping a false Jesus”) I am talking practical- lifestyle, fruits.
Is it the canning, the home-teaching, the tithing, the fasting for 24 hours to donate funds to the needy, the storing of a years supply of food, spending Monday evenings together as families, the assistance in loading up moving trucks, giving two years of life and thousands of dollars to a cause we believe in, the genealogical work, the campaign against same-sex marriage, the donation of money to fund the education of people in other countries, and on and on?
I am not saying that we are perfect. Neither am I saying that there are not other people who do great things. I am pointing out the relationship between the distinct practices that are a direct result of Joseph Smith and the doctrine and teachings of the Church.
My point is that there is an enormous disconnect between the radical claims and gripes from critics and the actual results of the organization known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do you really see works equal to David Koresh in the members of the LDS church?
One of the things that curses our society is the absolute inability of the individual to judge righteously. The results are seen in the acquittals of O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton. They are seen in the widely accepted belief that society is self-sustaining- that we can do anything we want without any consequences for our culture. It is seen in the repetitive placement of trust in “public servants” who are completely corrupt. It is seen in the refusal to recognize a relationship between pushing sex on kids and the breakdown of the family. And it is seen here in the inability to see the church objectively. There is always some explanation or rational employed to dismiss all the good of the church. But the overall argument simply fails- there is too much good in the church and from the church.
“By their fruits shall ye know them.” Evangelicals refuse to come to terms with that truth as it applies to LDS, the church, and Joseph Smith.
Continued….
Am I saying the church is above scrutiny or examination- no. I am saying that critics like those here have opinions and beliefs about the church and its members that are completely disconnected from reality. Their global view of the church is extremely inaccurate- a massive caricature. There is nothing that will ever change their view in the slightest. Their beliefs about the LDS church are almost as cherished and sacred as their own religious beliefs- sometimes it seems more so.
On commenting on “influence”, Olsen Jim wrote
“Joseph Smith is one of the most influential individuals in American history…the Book of Mormon has been named one of the 20 most influential books published in America. Over 130 million copies have been produced. The religion he founded is now practiced in over 130 countries. The adherents of that religion were instrumental in settling a considerable portion of the western U.S. Could go on. You get the idea.”
Not being a resident of the US, do you know how this sounds to me? Allow me to paraphrase a parallel;
“The MacDonald’s food chain is [the] most influential food supplier in America. Over 130 million [or thereabouts] restaurants have been produced. These outlets are now found in over 130 countries [probably all the countries on earth – its a truly global operation]. The franchisees are instrumental in contributing to a considerable portion of the western U.S economy. Could go on. You get the idea.”
Now, despite its influence, I challenge anyone to recommend MacDonald’s as a classy restaurant where people should get their daily bread. For a start, the food can hardly be described as “good” (and its better here than, say, New York, UK or Hong Kong – I speak from experience).
I fully agree with the assessment of Sharon and others, that the LDS movement has used Quincy’s quote, out of context, to associate Joseph Smith’s influence with his (alledged) goodness. In other words, he was influential because he was good, or he was good because he was influential. Therefore, we should believe him.
I don’t doubt his influence, just like I don’t doubt the influence of the MacDonald’s franshcise, within the US and without it.
Like Quincy and Adams, I sincerely doubt Joseph Smith’s goodness.
So, I’m not going to believe in someone whom I don’t think is good. I could get theological about it, but I think that this is one instance in which my human instincts do point me in the right direction
Jim, you say this: “But the overall argument simply fails- there is too much good in the church and from the church.”
Sorry, but I think good coming out of an organization is irrelevant. You could say Oprah or Doctor Phil were true if you wanted to, because of all the good they do for people. Same for Ty Pennington and his “Extreme Home Makeover.” But you wouldn’t say that about them, would you?
You see, its more than just doing good works that’s involved here. Its about doing what Christ would have us do. Now, I know you believe you are doing Christ’s works, and we think you aren’t. But that particular dispute is for another time (though invovled in everything we talk about here). The direct issue invovled in your comment is that you claim that works prove your faith.
I don’t dispute that your church does good things in the community, but just like United Way positive community involvement does not make the organization philosophically right.
Your argument on this point also ignores the good that Christian churches do in their communities and abroad, so you are not alone in doing good in the world because of your faith.
I would not use that argument anymore because it doesn’t help your cause.
As to Jesus being angry, do you wish to supply any sources to back up your claim? Or is this going to be another broad and unsubstantiated claim?
I have a real issue with the following statement: With Smith, you have to not only acknowledge his power but you him allegiance to. And that necessarily entails being deferential to him and his progeny.
Michael, what power do I HAVE to acknowledge, and what allegiance? Doesn’t allegiance mean that I would have obligations to him? The best you might come up with is a sense of duty, again what duty would that be? You say I HAVE to acknowledge his power, what power?
My duty is strictly to God and His Son, Jesus Christ and all that comes from God, also his power and authority, no one else. And as for Deferential, the most would be only respect and a testimony of His calling as God’s servant chosen in these last days to bring about the restoration of the true Gospel and Priesthood.
So I take issue with a very badly written assumption of your personal opinion you know little about.
R.
Kevin stated, “Hank, surely you recognize the differences in Power. There is Positional power, personal power, and indirect effected power; there is probably a few more but this is all I can think of at the moment.
LOL, you truly missed what Michael was trying to point out, please re-read it again, and get back to me with something more relevant.
r.
MichaelP,
You said “Its about doing what Christ would have us do. Now, I know you believe you are doing Christ’s works, and we think you aren’t.”
Which of the practices among Latter-day Saints I mentioned would Christ not have us do?
And that is my question- which of our practices (not related to liturgy) would you say is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ?
As far as Oprah, Phil, etc.- to the extent that their efforts actually do good and are intended to selfishly benefit others- I would say absolutely, it is a fruit of something good.
If a person is a “faithful” LDS, they live a life filled with virtuous, selfless, wholesome,and productive practices. And those practices are not just a small component of their life- they define them.
As I said above, I am not “saying that there are not other people who do great things.” I am challenging the hyper-critical, unintelligent, and completely unbalanced assessment by church critics.
olsen: Joseph Smith was much like David Koresh. He was a meglomaniac, believed he talked to God and was his prophet, had a sexual problem with women and children (Smith took a 17 year old wife who was a child)and had MANY partners, like Koresh and put himself on an equal foot with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There might be some good in your organization, but there was in the Camp Davidians also. (Ask the remaining members) If the root is bad – the tree is bad. How can you justify statements like these from Brigham Young : “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.- JoD 11:272 (Dec 23, 1866) And this: “no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are.” -JofD 7:289 There is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. If you want to harp on all the good you do NOW, fine, but do not say you are the original, restored church of Jesus Christ to get converts. Be up front. But the bulk of tithes goes to Salt Lake to make it easy on those Millionaire General Authorities. If Spencer Kimball was a prophet, why didnt he listen to Brigham Young who said all the whites had to get the priesthood first? Because they could not tell who was black from all the intermarrying. It hurt their proselytizing efforts.
Hank, so if you only have a duty to Christ and to God, and not to Smith, tell me something that would indicate to me that there is a possibility that you would leave him and his teachings and follow Christ?
Christ is your leader, then, not Smith?
And what power do YOU have? You have your agency, do you not? So, yes, you do have a choice. Allegience. Do you not owe loyalty to him? That is the essence of the word allegiance. We pledge allegiance to our Flag, meaning we are loyal to it. Are you saying you are not loyal to Smith?
The duty is to be loyal to him, and yes, you have that don’t you? What would happen to you if you went around your ward disparaging Smith or Young or Monson? I think you know the answer to that.
You say you have to acknowledge his power. I do, because that is inherent in the above. If you say he didn’t have power, you either have a poor idea of what power is or just don’t want to face that what I say is true. Smith had power, and quite frankly, you know it.
Another Joseph Smith stated that your faith actually stands on Joseph Smith, and that there is no middle ground. Are you then contradicting what JFS said by saying you have no allegiance to him?
Don’t put yourself in a place you can’t get out of. The simple reality is that my “broadly written assumption” is written out of a realistic appraisal of your faith and what it entails. Your faith cannot exist without the story of Smith.
Do not confuse words here, because to owe allegiance is to be loyal to someone or something. You have to be loyal to him because his story is the basis for your faith. He has power because without his story, your faith would not exist.
Your duty may be to serve God, but that duty also must entail acknowledging what Smith did.
I was once told that I wouldn’t make it very far in God’s eyes if I denied his prophets.
Hank, I think you should stop trying to fight every accusation. Some (most?) are very solid.
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father (that is gets to heaven) except through me” (John 14:6). There is no arbitrary set of rules or secret temple ceremonies needed to go to heaven. You believe in Jesus and the good works will follow. Him. Him alone. Joseph Smith – David Koresh – Jim Jones – all put THEMSELVES first. What is so bad about Mormonism? This belief being taught about multiple Gods, Holy Prophets equal to Jesus, and the fact that Jesus is not the one, the ONLY God. If you don’t believe in THAT Jesus, you have stolen that person away from Him. That is what is so bad, no matter how much GOOD you do. He said it. In the last days would come false prophets with teachings so close to the truth to deceive even the very elect. So no matter how much GOOD you do, the root is evil, hence the tree is evil.
Jim, that’s nice, but the criticism I raise still stands. Calling our your good stuff doesn’t help your argument because so many other do good stuff. Your answer to those “hyper critical” people is faulty. I explained one reason why above.
But it also goes against what Christ demeaned the Pharisees for: bragging about what they did. Remember the story of the rich man announcing to the congregation what he was giving and then the poor widow giving all she had, which was next to nothing? Do you remember part of the moral of that story– he condemned the man for being so vocal. This is not the only instance we see this theme in the Bible, either.
What you are doing is shouting, “Hey, look at what we do! Because we do what we do, we must be true!” (Sorry for the rhymes, sounds like a cheer.)
This is actually, against the fruit Christ was talking about in the verse you gave. I don’t think the fruit is all about doing good things, its about honoring God. And shouting to the world about how much good you do is not honoring God. Rather, it is self-serving.
Fruit can show itself through good works (as you understand and list them), but that is not necessary. Fruit can come in any number of ways that may not be so easilly apparent, and it is these that most often God work his greatest work. I think that is the point, isn’t it? To allow God to work through us and not us for him. Do you see this distinction?
To answer your question on which in the list is bad? I think that’s irrelevant. None of those are bad on their face, but when you look at what motivates them and the theolgy behind them it becomes a new story.
This is a rambling post. I am exhausted. I hope you understand it, which is simply to say that your argument really falls on two grounds, one logically, the other Biblically. The logic fails to consider other alternatives to reach a conclusion, and the Biblical is that it is against what Christ himself said on a very key point.
Hank, I understood perfectly what Michael was saying, and I was addressing you public service announcement, you didn’t define what kind of power you were talking about, while Michaels comment, at least what I think, was put in place to prove the point that Mormons have to take JS with his “power”, there is no other way . We all know the JS didn’t have any special powers, either from God Himself or from the rock in his pocket. In line with the topic, about JS’s influence, I was stating his power, the only power that he had, the power that he abused. Without the Coercive Power, JS was an man on a stump yelling at the wind.
Please don’t try and belittle anyones comments with a condescending remark, if you don’t understand what I, or anyone else is saying, it is completely appropriate to reword for clarification.
Subgenius,
““We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God””
I was suprised many years ago when a bible literalist was actually open to the idea of additional scripture. I always thought they thought the cannon was complete. He was open, but thought that there should some tests. Does it conflict with existing scripture? Does any predictions made hold true? Can any new idea(s) presented be tested? So, he demonstrated to me why he felt he couldn’t accept the LDS cannon, his explanation was pretty much like what is on MC.
What do you think of the Bahai faith? If you know anything about it? They add new scripture in the works of Bahaullah, whom they believe to be the 2nd comming of christ. Muslims have the Koran, sikhs have the Guru Granth Sahib. (although this is not quite viewed in the same light as other religions) How are you to say the the BOM, D&C and POGP are new additions, and that these other ones are not?
Hank Saint,
“My duty is strictly to God and His Son, Jesus Christ and all that comes from God, also his power and authority, no one else. And as for Deferential, the most would be only respect and a testimony of His calling as God’s servant chosen in these last days to bring about the restoration of the true Gospel and Priesthood.”
How would you react if the LDS leadership received a new revelation, that even they never saw coming… one about allowing temple ordinances to performed to seal same-sex marriages within the temple? Especially given how they recently told the membership to fight it with everything they had?
Grindael, well spoken! And it seems like everyone else is getting the main points also, except the Smithians. Good works do not prove that an organization represents God, and good works alone don’t earn salvation, which is what religion is all about isn’t it? Otherwise we here are no different than a Coke vs. Pepsi debating club: it all comes down to personal preference, but there are really no consequences if you drink either one. The topics discussed on this board have eternal consequences.
Which brings me to the second point that the Smithians are ignoring: Christians don’t necessarily have a problem with teaching or a “revelation” about how a passage could or should be interpreted or even new revelation as long as it doesn’t contradict the truths already revealed in the Bible. If we find a contradiction one of the two things is a lie, and one is true. We have to have an unshifting foundation for our faith, and we won’t trust a religious system that is internally contradictory. The God of the BoM is not the God of the D&C, King Follet Discourse, BoA, or PoGP. The God of the BoM was much closer to the God of the Bible. The issue that ended up getting JS killed was polygamy. It was rumored that he was committing adultery with other men’s wives. He denied it. The proof was put in print. The printing press was destroyed. JS was arrested, which led to his death. Aren’t the evil Lamanites commended for not taking plural wives because God sees it as an abomination? Smith’s own life contradicts the basis of the Smithian faith, and yet they “follow the Prophet”. Kinda like Muslims. There are many striking resemblences there also. Is Islam also true?
Hank – sorry I go to work early and wasn’t able to post yesterday. When I referenced Author and Proprietor of the Book of Mormon you promptly told me they changed it from author to translator (did they make any other changes? White and delightsome??). You ignored Proprietor (that would be someone who collected the money from sales or tried to sell the rights of the book – like to Canada or something). In actuality, this is one first and few recorded truths that he ever wrote. You ignored the lying about the polygamy.
Have you ever heard the saying, “Oh what a tangled web you weave when FIRST you practice to deceive.”
If you put your trust in man (I don’t care if it’s Jimmy Swaggert, Billy Graham, John Hagee, or Joseph Smith) they will let you down every time.
I guess you could always change documented history — oops that’s already been done, you could change the most correct book ever written, oh, maybe there have been a few changes.
I won’t go through a litany of the misdeeds or lies the leadership of the church has said – it’s well documented by people who post on this forum and it wouldn’t make a difference to you anyway.
Please put your trust in God, and a book that is confirmed archeologically, historically, and factually — The Holy Bible.
Take Care
mutu,
Ever hear about something called righteous anger? The Bible is replete with examples and if you’d like, I can provide them. Your decision to focus on my reaction to your blatant insult to the Lord is very telling. When the Mormons attempt to draw some sort of equivalent to Jesus, the revealed Word of God, with Joseph Smith’s imaginative false revelation, they are committing blasphemy. The elevation of Smith by Mormons to the role of some sort of deity is sickening. The idea that Mormons have to pass muster with Smith to enter the Mormon version of heaven is evidence enough of the blatant assault on Jesus by Joseph Smith and Mormonism.
The idea that the Mormon church is “good” is pretty funny. I wonder how much money the Mormon church spends on general benevolence for those outside the clan, in relation to how much money they collect every year. The SLC LDS seems more intent on building malls and buying cattle ranches than it does on feeding the world’s hungry and destitute.
Larry Clark
You talk about the fallacy of putting trust in “man” you seemingly have never heard of King James, or Peter?
And i had not realized that archeologists had found Noah’s ark.
ironically you make the point that all Mormons request of everyone…read the BoM for yourself, for it bears its truth, its truth is not borne from judgement of JS character or deeds…for though he was a prophet, he is still just a man. There was but only one perfect being ever on this planet.
liv4jc
to claim that Mormons onyl believe in good works is quite ill-informed. Mormons openly believe and claim that there are many qualifiers for salvation. Repentance, Baptism for remission of sin, Good Works, endurance to end, etc…how misleading to suggest otherwise.
Your utilitarian philosophy about religion is a bit off the mark. You forget, but Luther may remind you, that good works are not needed by God, and are not for us but they are needed by our neighbor. You claim that the whole purpose is for your own salvation, a sort of do-for-you-is-really-do-for-me mentality (J Stuart Mill would be proud of you). This is precisely where evangelicals miss the mark, in my opinion.
Enki
your “what if” scenario is absurd and childish. What point are you hoping to make?
You think the Bible is complete? which “edited” version is complete to you? Are you familar with Gnostic Gospels?
You claim the BoM conflicts with either the Old or New testaments, please, explain how? I will gladly respond to any of your claims.
Luke 6:27-31, Leviticus 19:18…the most ignored scripture amongst modern day evangelicals
the lesson which culminates at Luke 22:51…nevermind.
Michael,
The only one who has influence or Power over me, is my Father in Heaven and His literal Son, Jesus Christ. But even God the Father has yielded that power over us by providing us with a Gift, a gift of Agency or Free will. Faith and Repentance have made me a New Man, and have shown me that by committing all that I am, and by serving God and man, I freely follow the Doctrines that his Chosen Prophet have given us through revelation. Duty? I replace that with a sense of service freely given with out any compulsion or mandate.
Hence your opinion that I’m loyal to Joseph Smith is worded and I quote, “The duty is to be loyal to him”, — “do you not owe loyalty to him?”
The straw-man you put up of course is the following: “The duty is to be loyal to him, and yes, you have that don’t you? What would happen to you if you went around your ward disparaging Smith or Young or Monson? I think you know the answer to that.”
LOL, of course if I was going to go around disparaging Joseph and other Church GA’s I would be called in for some serious questioning, for Apostasy is a serious issue as it was with the early Church, Apostasy, also meaning to fall away from the truth. Therefore, as an apostate and once believing and then rejected the truth of God would be considered a act of rebellion. Apostasy is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against truth. In the Old Testament God warned the Jewish people about their idolatry and their lack of trust in Him. In the New Testament the epistles warn us about not falling away from the truth. Apostasy is a very real and dangerous threat.
LOL because what you are actually describing is an act of Rebellion, a lack of faith. Again my duty is to serve God, my responsibility is to find the truth and test it. If as you say it is inherent to acknowledge What Joseph Did as a Prophet, then yes I must test all that he claims, all that he was professed to be, and all that he spoke or revealed.
R.
Enki,
“My duty is strictly to God and His Son, Jesus Christ and all that comes from God, also his power and authority, no one else. And as for Deferential, the most would be only respect and a testimony of His calling as God’s servant chosen in these last days to bring about the restoration of the true Gospel and Priesthood.”
Enki stated, “How would you react if the LDS leadership received a new revelation, that even they never saw coming… one about allowing temple ordinances to performed to seal same-sex marriages within the temple? Especially given how they recently told the membership to fight it with everything they had?”
This is a “What if statement”, which can be done both ways Enki, what if there was new Revelation from Christ, how would you know, and who would determine if the one speaking had authority to do so? You most likely would answer, “I would test it against the Scriptures” the word of God.
My answer would be, read, ponder and pray. If it was from God, I would expect and believe he would reveal any and all new truths to me personally. James 1:5.
Regards.
Hank, to be frank, you have to really ignroe some basic definitions and truths to reach your conclusion.
If disparaging Smith means rebellion, who are you rebelling against? You’ll say God, I am sure, but why would God care if you disparaged Smith if you only duty is to follow God? Do you see my point?
Smith is propped up in your faith, and you are required to ackowledge what he did. This is allegiance to him, though I know you will not buy into that. There’s something about the way I’ve framed the argument that you find appalling. I think its that you follow a man rather than God.
But this is not necessarilly so, and is not a part of my argument. To some degree, I am allegient to my church and my pastor, just as you are to your prophet. However, I am free to leave and disparage him if I choose without any repurcussions to my salvation.
That’s where the allegiance issue differs between me and you. You said it yourself, if you were to call out Smith openly in the ward, you’d be shunned like an apostate.
So, to be a good Mormon you have to be allegiant to Smith. All of this entails loyalty to what he was and what he did.
I am sorry, Hank, but try to wiggle out of this all you want, but you cannot. You must be loyal, allegiant, and dutiful to Smith. This does not mean you follow him above Christ. But it does mean that you put him in his proper place as the one who restored true Christianity and gave you the chance to believe as you do.
His power, by the way, does not necessarilly mean supernatural, it means his influence, too. Deferential, you must give him the benefit of hte doubt if there is a question regarding his character. We see this in any discussion regarding him, and I have yet to see you or any active Mormon call him out for the many questionable acts.
Quincy noted some in his article, like the fee he charged to see the curiosities.
But, because of your allegiance you cannto call him out.
His power
Michael
Actually you have not shown anywhere where I ignored basic truth and definitions, quiet frankly I sense some frustration that you have been shown quiet nicely that my allegiance has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and everything to do with agency and revelation.
You’re trying to put a spin on some bad assumption you presuppose. You assume that my Faith is blind, that I walk a path of loyalty to a man, and my allegiance also. What comes first, the chicken or the egg, what come first, blind faith or testing the word of God? You assume that disparaging Joseph Smith is the rebellion, when in fact the rebellion is not Joseph, the rebellion is against God. Example, God reveals his word through his Prophets, both in the OT and NT. So according to you, your duty is to believe in the scriptures and that these are truly the words of God, yet it would be OK to disparage against Moses, Abraham, Peter, James and John etc. Your point is not creditable, for you need to not only believe the Bible, but you must also accept that these men or Prophets spoke with authority, and were chosen by God.
There is no wiggling, these are truths and you have tried to define me and my belief system and failed miserably.
Regards.
I was out on YouTube last night watching a short presentation on Joseph Smith and his magic Jupiter Talisman that he wore and in fact was wearing the night he was killed in the shoot out in the Carthage jail. Anyway a related video pops up called “The Untold Story of the Death of Joseph Smith”. I was surprised to see that it was a presentation by Bill McKeever of MRM. I watched it and thought it had direct application to our current topic here. It’s worth the twenty-five minutes it takes to watch and provides yet another example of how the Mormon church has a penchant for hiding information about Smith. The link is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSo0ate4tM&feature=related
MichaelP,
I think you misunderstand my point. I am not touting the works of Mormons to prove our church is the true church. I am pointing out the total disconnect between claims that you and others make about the church and the actual fruits and results of living the teachings of the church.
“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
I am pointing out that the bulk of all your claims and those of LDS critics here goes completely against this statement from Christ. In essence, you are saying that all the good that comes from the church comes from an evil tree. And I am saying your minds are clouded by prejudice- you cannot recognize the church for what it really is– not just what you read in your books and webpages.
You and others have claimed a parallel between Mormons and the Pharisees. I invite you to look again and see what Christ condemns in the Pharisees. Did he condemn their obedience to the law of Moses and the commandments? Never. Did he condemn their attempts at righteousness? No.
Christ pointed out and condemned the hypocrisy and judgementalism of the Pharisees. They took the law and manipulated it to lift themselves up above other people. They were anxious and more than willing to condemn others to hell for small matters. Selfishness and a way-to-narrow focus on religious criteria and boundaries resulted in their inability to see the most important things.
Between LDS and their critics, I ask you- which group more closely matches the Pharisees? Which group condemns the other to hell? Which group is militant in ensuring the other is not included in a religious category based on theological criteria. Which group searches for doctrinal minutia which will make the other look bad? Which group dismisses all the good in the other because of perceived errors in theology.
Guest and visitors,
Please note what is assumption and what is fact, A certain person called Bidamon claimed that the Talisman was in the Pocket of Joseph Smith when he was MURDERED. Yet a detailed inventory of the Prophets personal affects after his being MURDERED and martyred names no item like Bidamon talisman. Hence there is no corroboration for his story.
It’s always interesting to see how things are worded in complete and utter lack of hard evidence.
r.
Hank, I have only but a minute now to respond to your post to me above. But I think your point really proves mine. See, if Smith is a prophet, and we are to be loyal to prophets, you must be loyal to him. Of course we differ on whether he is a prophet, but that is really beyond the scope of argument here.
I also never stated that your faith is blind. Actually, I said you have to hold him up even against the evidence suggesting his character was very flawed. This is not a blind faith, for a blind faith is one where there is no evidence.
I also do not contend with that idea that you put your faith in God before that of any man. That is not my contention, nor do I necessarilly think it is true.
I do contend that your faith must prop up Smith and that you must follow, with allegiance, to him and his progency. This means you must give your allegience to your present prophet. Remember, he’s viewed as some sort of an agent of God, and is supposed to receive direct revelation from him. What the prophet says carries great weight (that influence/power). He may not be who your primary allegiance goes to, but I never said that was the case. I only said you MUST be allegient to him.
So, Hank, reread what I said and do not put anything more into it. I meant what I said and only what I said. The allegiance point stands, and the power point stands. There is nothing in it about blind faith or the necessity of putting him before God. That is a possibility, but not a necessity.
You, as LDS, are bound, by allegiance, to lift up Joseph Smith. To do otherwise, as you yourself have stated, would be to go against God.
Jim, you said this: “Christ pointed out and condemned the hypocrisy and judgementalism of the Pharisees. They took the law and manipulated it to lift themselves up above other people. They were anxious and more than willing to condemn others to hell for small matters. Selfishness and a way-to-narrow focus on religious criteria and boundaries resulted in their inability to see the most important things.”
Why then do you bring out the good your church does?
You say it is to show the good fruit your church produces and how it fits in with what Christ said.
But think again about the motives and what Christ said.
And I think you are still saying that because of hte works, your church is true. Consider this statement of yours: “But the overall argument simply fails- there is too much good in the church and from the church.” “There is too much good in the church…” What else could you be saying?
I think you also have to question what good fruit is. I addressed this briefly above, and I’ll say it again, though slightly different:
Good fruit is that which uplifts Christ AND allows him to work through us. Good work is not necessarilly charity or obedience.
If good fruit is that which uplifts Christ AND allows him to work through us, any work that is not done in that manner is faulty. Thus, if the LDS church is faulty because it alters who Christ is (among others), then it is impossible for your works to allow him to work through you. Therefore, your works are not good fruit.
So let me see if I can get the argument right; Joseph Smith carried a Jupiter Talisman but he didn’t have it with him at the time of his death. That’s the point, right? There is a book titled “Mormonism 101” by Bill McKeever. I don’t know, but Bill seems to be a pretty good source of information regarding Mormonism. Is this one more example of Mormonism white washing Smith’s occult connection and Mormonism’s foundation in the occult?
Olson,
Your reply to Michael P. is riddled with false
assumptions.Your statement that Christians here
are, “dismissing all the good ” LDS do, is a
texbook red-herring. Your selective use of
verses that apply to lifestyle as the guage
to determine that LDS are true believers, is
a half-truth.The verse you used(good fruit vrs
evil fruit) is true, yet it is only one crit-
eria.What you believe about God and Jesus is
even more important[see Jn.8:24].
In 2 John there are two words that are used of
believers;”love” and “confess”. LDS have the
“love”(lifestyle) down fairly good.But the
“confess”(belief of truths),LDS have been
misled by a prophet concerning the truth of
who God and Jesus are etc.
You also mentioned, “the results of living the
teachings of the Church”.However, you want to
concentrate on the teachings of lifestyle,what
about the other teachings? Rather than there
being a “disconnect” by those Christians on this
blog, there is actually a “connect”.A connect
that looks at both lifestyle and belief of our
LDS friends.It’s like a coin.Both sides of
which should be considered for a fair evalua-
tion.
Lastly, your statement that those on this cite
“searches for doctrinal minutia which will make
the other look bad”, is really a terrible
comment.Rather than look for “doctrinal minutia”
we merely follow the scripture that tells us
to evaluate what any prophet/teacher proclaims
[1 Jn 4:1].Your leadership has certainly pro-
claimed who they believe God is.Do we blindly
ignore this and instead evaluate Mormonism only
by observing LDS lifestyle? The highest level
of your leadership knows that to profess the
wrong God can be lethal:
“…people who teach false doctrine in the
fundamental and basic things will lose their
souls.The nature and kind of being that God
is, is one of these fundamentals…”
[Apostle Bruce McConkie in a letter to BYU
prof. Eugene England].
Olsen, place your good works at Jesus’ feet.
Phil.3:9-10
HankSaint,
“You most likely would answer, “I would test it against the Scriptures” the word of God.
My answer would be, read, ponder and pray. If it was from God, I would expect and believe he would reveal any and all new truths to me personally. James 1:5. ”
I wasn’t looking for a projection on what you think I would think. So, from your response, it isn’t enough that Salt Lake issued a statement about this issue, you will still have to get a personal revelation. So, in effect you would need two revelations? The response has the sort of quality of “I’ll take it as it comes”. Is there a possibility that you would reject that revelation, and change in policy, and leave the LDS church? The other possibility is to agree and accept the statement, per your own individual confirmation?
MichaelP,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make about LDS belief. Here however is a statement of essential elements of an LDS ‘testimony’.
“The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today.”
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d2157c2fc20b8010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
A person who is exposed to LDS doctrines really has only two choices, to accept or reject the ideas contained in the statement above. This can be done in various degrees. I would imagine that lack of interest or neutrality would fall under rejection.
It seems like you are pressing people here for some point which is probably not going to come anytime soon. The LDS member can fully accept J.S. while recognizing that he was not perfect, and could have made some major mistakes. Some other LDS sects have gone as far as rejecting the BOA and many sections of the D&C as being false, while accepting the BOM and the foundation of the restoration as layed by J.S. I have even read statements that J.S. started sinning almost immediately after the restoration. Its possible, there certainly are examples of prophets which have sinned and turned away from the hebrew god, in the O.T.
Hank, where do you get the idea that the Apostles were prophets? Writing to a Jewish audience, the writer of Hebrews says,
Peter, the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas, were living in direct contradiction to the teaching as revealed by Jesus and taught by His Apostles, Peter being one of them. So, you see, that when a teaching directly contradicts what our Lord taught, such as abstaining from certain foods (Colossians 2:16-23), we are to defend the true gospel, which is salvation by grace through faith by trusting in Christ alone, and not upon works of righteousness that we have done (Ephesians 2 and Titus 3:5).
What does Paul say in Galatians? He marvels that the churches are so soon turning from a gospel of grace, to one of works of righteousness. Paul said that even if he or an angel from heaven preached a gospel contrary to the one he first revealed, let him be anathema. Now, when you claim that we deny Smith’s revelations simply because they came from an angel, this is not true. What we are saying is that if the revelation that the angel gives is in direct contradiction to the gospel as taught by Jesus and His Apostles, we are to deny that. So you should be able to openly deny all of your GA’s when they teach doctrine contrary to that revealed in the Bible, such as don’t eat, don’t taste, don’t touch, or any other doctrine of works salvation.
MikeR,
In your statement above its important to stress that the LDS people believe that obeying the laws of the gospel are essential for salvation. Bible literalists generally do not think that obeying will save anyone.
Love? The nasty thing about the LDS teachings about obeying the laws is that it can lead to some very, very abusive treatment via judgements about lack of conformity to the gospel. Its an antilife philosophy, especially as far as ‘grace’ is something that is ‘earned’ after all that can be done.
Enki, great points!
You know, the Mormon church can be assessed by one sentence out of Jesus’ mouth (well, several different ones, standing alone, actually).
He said “except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
How does ones righteousness exceed that of any/all of the scribes and Pharisees?
For the Christians (going by the Bible), it does so by having God’s righteousness IMPUTED to you. It happens when saving faith is placed in Jesus’ finished work at the cross.
For Mormons, faith in Jesus is only the first of many steps one must take. Some of the others include water-immersion baptism by a priesthood holder of “the” church. Another is keeping all the commandments.
So, if a Mormon dies only believing in Jesus, and before being able to check off any of the other boxes on the LDS to-do list, he can’t get in.
Is any Mormon here going to enter the kingdom of heaven? Well, let’s see. Have any of you kept all the commandments since your youth, and also sold all your goods and given the money to the poor?
Hmm. I don’t think you qualify.
My heart goes out to the Mormons here who are still being deceived by the obfuscation of the simple gospel of Jesus revealed by him. What is so tragic about all of this is that it is SO SIMPLE. Jesus came to earth, revealed himself as the Messiah the Jews were waiting for, told them he was GOD – to which many could not believe and fell away, died for our sins, was resurrected and rose from the dead. He then appeared to his faithful followers to establish this witness, telling them to share this with the world. He later appeared to Paul, to spread this message to the Gentiles and the rest of the world. He knew his plan. Why do you think Paul went to Rome, and Spain and not to China? Jesus understood how his Church would develop. He gave his followers all they needed, as attested to by John:
“See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life. I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.” (see all of 1 John) There were many at that time who were trying to lead the church astray with phony teachings and rituals, the gnostics and others among them. But the Apostles knew, ‘YOU DON’T NEED ANYONE TO TEACH YOU, AS HIS ANOINTING TEACHES YOU ABOUT ALL THINGS’ This is STILL true today. The anointing of Jesus never went away, men fell away from it. What Smith – Koresh – and Jim Jones and others try to do is get in the way of that with systems that try to supplant the One, the ONLY true WAY. Belief and confession of Jesus as GOD and our SAVIOUR. ALL Good works follow. You dont need temples and secret handshakes to get past destroying angels who “guard the gates
the power of Christ in you is all you need. Do you doubt God can see into you? Why would he need you to memorize some secret handshake? Smith gives far more power to Satan than he deserves. Christ trampled Satan under his feet. He only has power HERE, on EARTH. Your Belief and submission to JESUS will get you to the Father. That is why they called him GOD when he appeared to them after his ressurection. The Gospel is SIMPLE. You don’t need JOE SMITH to get you into heaven as Brigham Young says. You JUST NEED JESUS. Confess him, worship HIM, and love your fellowman. That is all you need. The TREE is evil, hence the system is.
If we are going to have a battle of influence and good deeds I think the Christian faith (although apostate according to the beiefs of Smithism), has far more to boast in that Smithism does. Mercy was virtually unknown in the ancient world. Look at the practices of the Caananites, Babylonians, and Assyrians. God commanded the Israelites in Deuternomy and Leviticus 19 on how to deal with strangers in their land: with mercy, because they were once strangers and God showed them mercy. Mercy is a consistent theme in the gospel, not based solely on doing nice things for others, but being merciful to others because God is merciful to all men through common grace, even those who curse Him, and God has been especially merciful to His elect, who know they have been forgiven much, and do not deserve the merciful grace Christ bestows (Matthew 5:43-48, 18:21-35; Luke 6:27-38, 7:36-50). This is the nature of mercy and grace.
The apostate Christian church were the first missionaries, and Luke, the physician may have been the first medical missionary (Acts 28). Throughout the church age Christians have been involved in starting the first hospitals, universities, compassion ministries (Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.), and were involved in ending slavery. The list would be enormous. Not bad for apostates, huh? But we don’t measure our salvation on our good works, but by our spiritual fruit, which may produce good works. We don’t work for salvation, we work because we have been saved. How many Smithian doctors go on mercy missions, healing the sick while spreading the gospel of true healing?
Now, what of Smithism? Did JS bless those who cursed him, and pray for those who spitefully used him? No, he raised up an army and went to war with his neighbors. He pronounced a curse on the whole country if it didn’t stop persecuting Smithians. Reas Matthew 5:11-12.
To falcon and all,
Now is “righteous anger” one of those biblical terms lost to me in the KJV translation? 😉
While I’ll quickly agree that more than a few righteous figures from the Bible are credited with actions against others due to “anger” (including Jesus, our holy example), I think Jesus’ statement that being angry with your brother is ultimately be accountable to God’s judgment (but not necessarily condemned, perhaps) should make us all very careful and sensitive to what the causes of our anger are. Being quick to justify your anger, particularly when another person is involved, is never a good thing, in my estimation. Not according to Jesus’ plain word, anyways.
When ethnic/religious divisions are involved we should probably be most sensitive.
Jesus’ ironic example of the “good Samaritan” as the exemplar of an action-qualified “neighbor” is the most striking example I can think of in this vein. A point regretably forgotten in many religious debates.
Sincerely, mutu.
In Romans Paul lays out a case that everyone is lost. It doesn’t matter if a person is “good” in human terms. But the Bible is clear that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. Even moral people sin. But if we commit one sin, we are guilty of breaking the whole law.
The first thing that Paul does in Romans is set the stage about who God is. In Romans 1:3 Paul is basically echoing what is said in other parts of the NT. That is, at His incarnation, the Son of God became truly man, yet remained truly God. He laid aside the prerogatives or expression or exercise of deity when He became a human but He did not lay aside the possession of deity.
All the members of the Godhead are mentioned at the outset of Romans. This is a doctrine that was accepted by the apostles and Paul articulates it.
1. There are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in one divine nature.
2. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father; no one of the persons is either of the other.
3. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
4. There are not three Gods; there is but one God.
Now the problem with Mormonism and Joseph Smith’s claim is that he didn’t restore anything. He invented a god, a religion, and a gospel. In much the same way that he fooled people into thinking he could find buried treasure with a magic rock, he was successful in fooling some people into thinking that he had received a revelation from god. In doing so, he had to declare 2,000 years of Church history with it’s teaching about God as wrong. Exercising even a small amount of discernment or even some natural common sense and intellect, it’s obvious that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. The Mormon church testifies to the falseness of Smith’s claims by covering-up his character which has it’s basis in lies and deceit. This is a flaw that runs all through Mormonism. If someone gets it wrong about God, they are lost with no hope.
MichaelP,
I know of a member who did not sustain any of the prophets from Wilford Woodruff onwards as prophets of God but still kept his membership. Why? Because it is easier to keep the person in the church and teach them as well as easier to keep them a member than going through the re-joining membership process. All he was told to do was to keep his thoughts to himself in official church settings – outside of these he could say what he liked. He was eventually excommunicated because he did the exact opposite of what he was asked, but the leadership put up with him flaunting the rule for a couple of years before doing this hoping that he would do as asked.
Falcon,
The Jupiter Talisman – I thought we put this to bed ages ago. Here is a list and reference of what was on JS person when he was killed – “one hundred and thirty- five dollars and fifty cents in gold and silver and receipt for shroud, one gold finger ring, one gold pen and pencil case, one penknife, one pair of tweezers, one silk and one leather purse, one small pocket wallet containing a note of John P. Green for $50, and a receipt of Heber C. Kimball for a note of hand on Ellen M. Saunders for one thousand dollars, as the property of Joseph Smith” Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Seeking,” 558; Anderson points to its original source in J.W. Woods, “The Mormon Prophet,” Daily Democrat (Ottumwa, Iowa, 10 May 1885); and in Edward H. Stiles, Recollections and Sketches of Notable Lawyers and Public Men of Early Iowa (Des Moines, Iowa: Homestead Publishing, 1916), 271.
Can you see any mention of a Jupiter talisman anywhere there? This was printed in the newspaper by JS lawyer. If you want to say ‘cover-up’ then it is up to you to prove it. Otherwise, you are just making unsubstantiated claims. He may have carried one through his life (but there is no evidence of this except second hand accounts or hearsay as far as I know), but it was not on him at his death.
Ralph,
I love you. I mean I really do. Hay let me give you a cover-up. Mormonism was really first century Christianity but due to a great conspiracy it was all “covered-up”. You’re too much man. Why can’t I have a conspiracy and cover-up if you get to have one? I would say, Mormonism get’s a ton of cover-ups and it’s just perfectly acceptable to the faithful TBMs. Let me do a little digging here and I’ll get back to you. If I remember right there was a BYU type who back in about 1974 made a presentation to the historical society down there (it’s down geographically from me) in Nauvoo. I mean the dude laid it all out about Joe’s Jupiter Talisman and oh, oh the Mormon boys who sit in the big tall buildings in SLC silenced him. “Cover-up” anyone. I mean serious cover-up.
Don’t you just hate it Ralph when someone turns your cannons on you?
Enki, thanks for the insight on that. My point does not address doctrine, but an inseparable relationship with Smith and his progeny. LDS, from what I can tell, cannot really escape his influence and must prop him up.
You say that some say he is a flawed man and did some bad things, but I have never heard a comment from an LDS member going beyond that. I have never heard any specifics called out against him.
It also seems there are certain areas that cannot be breached, for example, his role in the Book of Abraham. LDS must maintain that he translated them, not attempted to, but that he did. Now, we discussed this at length and I do not want a rehash of that exact discussion, but I think it is an example of the allegiance I speak to.
The sects that you speak of, from what I understand (and correct me if I am wrong) are viewed as apostate and don’t follow the true church of Joseph Smith. The only true church is that which follows SLC’s example.
In the end, I do not expect an affirmitive answer from those to whom the charge is leveled. Somehow, despite (from what I see) its simple and apparent truth that does not even destroy the faith, it is abhorrent to them.
Suggesting that LDS must be allegiant Smith is somehow beyond the pail.
I’d love honest and open (not offended nor charged) responses to this that address why there is such sensitivity.
I want to paraphrase and apply to this subject a terrific argument.
Let’s say you’re on the jury in a court case where a person is being accused of murder.
There are 50 separate pieces of evidence that point to the person on trial as being guilty.
The “defense” wants to focus on each piece of evidence by itself, and try to give each piece of evidence a different explanation.
But here is the question: Is the accused person guilty because of the 50 pieces of evidence that point to him? – or – Is the accused person just really unlucky, so that 50 different pieces of unrelated evidence would line up to point to him, although he is actually innocent?
In other words, you can take separate pieces of evidence, and work hard to cast a shadow of a doubt in the case of each one. But can you, do you, will you, overlook the fact that such a pile of evidence has come together to show what truly happened?
Someone above brought up OJ Simpson. Anyone who watched his trial knows that he paid a lot of money for a top defense attorney, who worked hard to spin enough on an issue or two to get the case dismissed. BUT was OJ innocent?
Ralph and others, I’d like to suggest that you are playing just like defense attorneys.
MRM/Mormon Coffee is not the only place where the “evidence” is piled up against Joseph Smith and what he started. There is so much information available now, so many different pieces of evidence that come together to point to him as a fraud.
But you, each of you LDS posters, continue to play the part of the defense attorney, trying to find an alternative explanation for each piece of evidence, and meanwhile ignoring the bigger picture…
There is a mountain of evidence against Joseph Smith and his claims.
Is he guilty?
Or is he just really unlucky, so that all the different pieces of unrelated evidence line up to point to his fraudulence, despite his actual innocence?
How many separate pieces will you spin? How long will you ignore the mountain?
Quote, “I was out on YouTube last night watching a short presentation on Joseph Smith and his magic Jupiter Talisman that he wore and in fact was wearing the night he was killed in the shoot out in the Carthage jail” End quote.
Visitors, guest and those who are less then active LDS. Like the above assumption, there are many, many other assumptions constantly being posted here and with out any evidence to support there loosely spoken and mostly condensed tabloid gossip which could be labeled mostly as lurid and sensational. Facts are facts, but the above misstatement is ludicrous. I have no problem with statements that at least are stated with some reliable references, sources, or quotes. Hmmm, interesting that I find little to no personal research but just the mentioning of someone’s name, McKeever or something like that. Who is this McKeever? what does he do? and how is he connected with such a lame misquote.
R.
An Apostle,mentored and trained by Jesus,
proclaimed a test to identify spiritual
truth from error:
” Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh is of God.And every
spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh is not of God;and this
is that spirit of anti-christ….”[1Jn.4:2-3]
An Apostle mentored and trained by Joseph Smith
proclaimed concerning this same test:
” This is no test to this generation…This
generation, however, is not left without a
test.I have taught for thirty years, and
still teach, that he that believeth in his
heart and confesseth with his mouth that
Jesus is the Christ AND that Joseph Smith
is his prophet to this generation, is of God,
and he that confesseth not that Jesus has
come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith
with the fulness of the Gospel to this gen-
eration, is not of God, but is anti-christ…”
[prophet Brigham Young. J.of D. vol.9 p.312 ]
However Joseph Smith’s influence may be defined,
I’m thankful his influence does’nt affect me like
it did Brigham Young.
Whoaaaa….
Thank you Mike R for that.
That BY quote is absolutely chilling…..
I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He did so much for us. I am so glad He is my Lord and Savior.
🙂 Free
McKeever, McKeever who is he anyway? Anyone out there ever hear of this McKeever? What’s he done anyway? Has he written anything? Has he done any research into Mormonism? I wonder who he could be? Moderators, do you know a McKeever? I wonder if I went over and looked at the Mormon Research Ministry website if I might find this guy’s name?
I’ll go look and see if I can find a guy by that name. McKeever, who is that guy? Don’t know Sundance but he is wearing a white hat. Must be one of the good guys!