Mormonism

[AESCHYLUS]

On the subject of the Ark, here is an interesting Report by Mark Isaak.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Some of his interesting points: (because I don't think the majority will put the effort into reading this link)


11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points
(Mark Isaac)

Are flood models consistent with the Bible? Creationists who write about the Flood often contradict the very story they're trying to support. For example, Whitcomb & Morris [1961, p. 69n] suggest that large numbers of kinds of land animals became extinct because of the Flood, while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered. Woodmorappe [1996, p. 3] wants to leave invertebrates (i.e., just about "every creeping thing on the ground") off the ark. Why should we give credence to a story whose most ardent supporters abandon when it's inconvenient?

Genesis 6-8 speaks only of rain, fountains, and a flood; it makes no mention of other catastrophies which many Creationists associate with the Flood. Their proposed Flood models not only contradict geology, they have no Biblical support, either.

How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.

How can a literal interpretation be consistent with reality? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?

Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...]

In fact, is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?

Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible? Davis Young, an Evangelical and geologist, wrote [p. 163]:

"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.

"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. . . ."

Another Christian scientist said, "Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief." [quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p. 891]

Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God?

If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? (This can be argued with the common point that God does this to show his power.)
The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

[Fayle]

First off, polygamy was taught by Jews long before Christ and long after. God found it most definitely "acceptable." I put the number of polygamists in the Bible somewhere around thirty.

This is where i jump in. God most definitely did NOT allow it. He said in his words that when man and woman conjoin to be one, they are allowed the pleasures of sexual gratification, which locks the marriage to each other and non other. That itself says do not be with another woman.
Just because Abraham did it does not mean anything.

You are missing the big point. You are saying Abraham did this, Joseph did that, and using this to prove the followers of christ are bad. Yes, ALL PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH ARE BAD, SINFUL CREATURES. If Abraham fucked another chick, just for a kid it is STILL WRONG. God no where in the Bible says "Go ahead joseph, lay down with this woman for your child". It was not, and still is not allowed in the eyes of the lord.

Stop taking the followers and using them against the Bible and Chrisitian ways. I am personally not a christian. I am a follower in the Lord and Bible. But seeing this bullshit angers me because you do not understand why these things are taught.

Find in the Dead Sea Scrolls a section where the lord allows acts and use it. Just because the lord says NO does not mean people will say YES. I have had non-marriageable sex. God said no i said yes. It's been happening and will keep happening. The Lord allows us a soul and free decision to test us, and most people fail this test. It is a test of courage and love for our Lord on High. So please do not use PEOPLE or take the Bible out of context to prove your false accusations correct. You just make yourself look ignorant.

[AESCHYLUS]

In the case of polygamy, it may not be socialy accepted for most, but it is beneficial for the human race, or any race for this matter.
Natural Selection in Family Law

As for the bible-(no definite opinion but this is what i found)

“If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated” [Deuteronomy 21:15]

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” (Exodus 21:10)

" And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8: And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things" (2 Sam.7:12).

You may check translation, but they all retain the same meaning.

And if it is argued that polygamy is against Gods will, why would a God deprive the objects of his creation the ability to better themselves?

[Capt.Trips]

"The ideal marriage, according to God. The very first marriage, Adam and Eve, in many ways serves as a prototype, if you will. Notice that God knew that it was not good that Adam be alone and God provided for Adam a "help meet" (counter part that was a complement to Adam, Gen. 2: 18). Observe how God did not simply provide another man, but for Adam God made woman, the "glory of the man" (Gen. 2: 18ff., I Cor. 11: 7ff.). Hence, same sex marriage is not part of God’s arrangement for the marriage bond (see Rom. 1: 22ff.). Moreover, appreciate the fact that when God instituted marriage, it was one man and one woman (Gen. 2). If polygamy is the "ideal," as some are teaching, why, then, did not God create Eve, Sue, Jane, etc. for Adam?"
Polygamy and the Bible

[Rose de Nose]

Even with God's purpose aside, most of the discussion regarding polygamy is assuming a multiple female to single male union. Look at the world population totals. There are more boys than girls, but even then it's still a fairly even, balanced ratio. (101.3 men for every 100 women (source: 2001 World Almanac)) Science. Use it sometime. God designed us to join with one person, of the opposite sex, for the rest of our lives, in marriage.

[bloodlusta]

From a biological point of view one male paired with 2 females makes sense. The male can impregnate both at the same time doubling the rate of population growth. Also in nature not all males get to mate. Only the strongest, thus keeping the genetic lines strong.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

From a biological point of view one male paired with 2 females makes sense. The male can impregnate both at the same time doubling the rate of population growth. Also in nature not all males get to mate. Only the strongest, thus keeping the genetic lines strong.

If humans where as simple as their biology then yes; however, two females to one male causes disputes between the females - threatening the survival of the off spring.

[bloodlusta]

females fighting over males is a cultural thing not a genetic one. And sorry to break it to you but human are just biology, you are just a series of chemical reactions

[Rose de Nose]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

females fighting over males is a cultural thing not a genetic one. And sorry to break it to you but human are just biology, you are just a series of chemical reactions

How completely untrue. As much as you love to boast that we are nothing more than beasts of the field, the fact remains that humans are set apart. For one thing, we can argue about this point thousands of miles away from one another, having never met, using a series of wires, metal, and plastic assembled as computers, connected via the internet. That in itself is evidence that we are driven by far more than biological reactions. We are outrageously smart, no animal approaching our intellect. We have a consciousness, we are self aware, ect ect.

Secondly, more than 50% of American marriages fail and end in divorce. Divorce isn't stimulating to the sex drive. Less children are produced, lawyers (predators) thrive. That's with one wife and one husband.

Perhaps you don't have a wife, but women and men are driven with far more complex drives than can be explained. Polygamy complicates these things far more than a monogamous relationship could be. Perhaps wife #2 doesn't want to be impregnated, becuase of the favoritism being received by wife #1. Thus, she is both: NOT being impregnated by someone else, on account of her belonging to her husband, and NOT becoming pregnant by him, either.

Many, many more problems follow with polygamy. Read "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop. She escaped a Fundamentalist LDS polygamist family in which she was being abused daily, which is a common trend in polygamist families. Polygamist relationships do not work. We are not animals. God does not condone them, even if they were permitted in the Old Testament.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

females fighting over males is a cultural thing not a genetic one.

In some species, males and females fight one another to death for the right to mate with the most desirable mates. It's not cultural, it crosses the borders of genetics into multiple species.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

And sorry to break it to you but human are just biology, you are just a series of chemical reactions

Interesting - and yet we've developed totally different cultures across the globe. We've adapted to environments where we simply shouldn't be able to survive. We overcame the fact that our biology left us without in-born weaponry and created tools. As weak and feeble in comparison to other predators, we rose to the top of the foodchain.

Sounds like we've done quiet a bit to exceed our biology.

[bloodlusta]

Wrong, males and only males fight for a mate. females have no need, as they can only be impregnated by a single male, where a male can impregnate as many females as he wants.

We may be more advanced but that doesn't mean we have exceeded our biology. People put to much into what our technology is. If you were to get a baby and it grew up in the wild it would not have that level of technology. Technology is not a natural part of us. And many other animals use tools. Even some crabs have learnt to use kina as protection. And as far as i know crabs are pretty dumb

[AESCHYLUS]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Interesting - and yet we've developed totally different cultures across the globe. We've adapted to environments where we simply shouldn't be able to survive. We overcame the fact that our biology left us without in-born weaponry and created tools. As weak and feeble in comparison to other predators, we rose to the top of the foodchain.

Sounds like we've done quiet a bit to exceed our biology.

I would look into Determinism. The chain of "chemical events" could more for the purpose of determinism be described as cause and effect scenarios.

[Djaqaverlerron]

Black People weren't allowed into heaven until the mid-late 70s

[AESCHYLUS]

Originally Posted by Djaqaverlerron

Black People weren't allowed into heaven until the mid-late 70s

Where did you hear this?

[Djaqaverlerron]

Originally Posted by AESCHYLUS

Where did you hear this?

I was a later day saint until I was like 14. I wasn't really a later day saint so much as I was forced to go to church.

I don't remember where I first heard it but I know it to be fact. The act (act of letting black people into heaven) has a very specific name I just can't remember it right now. I'll ask my mother in like 8 hours.



Couple facts about Mormonism

The president of the church communicates to God through dreams. Like wise if you want a sign to prove Mormonism God will give it to you through a dream.

The Holy Underwear is true but its only for "sacred" temples.

If you are super religious you'll become a God of your own world too. This is actually how God became a God...... The Holy spirit is a different God then God. Same with Jesus.

If you were never given a chance to become a Mormon you won't go to hell. You go to super bible school until your able to go to heaven.

Also since my sister is a Mormon and I think its complete bullshit I still get to go to heaven. Why you might ask..... because it wouldn't be heaven for my sister if her entire family isn't there.

You can't date until you turn 16

They also believe in this bullshit called Christianity.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Djaqaverlerron

They also believe in this bullshit called Christianity.

Mormonism and Christianity are two completely different faiths, with totally different doctrine, and vastly different teachings.

Calling Mormonism and Christianity the same is like saying Catholics and Taoists are the same.

[AESCHYLUS]

Originally Posted by Djaqaverlerron

They also believe in this bullshit called Christianity.

Care to prove that Christianity is bullshit?

[Aequitas]

I actually am a mormon and I'm pretty sure that we're Christians...maybe my definition is wrong, would you mind defining the term "Christian" for me shetlan?

There's also a few things you're wrong about Djaqaverlerron, namely that you get to go to heaven simply because your sister is LDS and the part about the dreams. You also have to earn your way into the kingdom of Heaven and I've never heard anything about God communicating only in dreams. Everything else is more or less correct.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

I actually am a mormon and I'm pretty sure that we're Christians...maybe my definition is wrong, would you mind defining the term "Christian" for me shetlan?

It is an intresting argument about "what is a Christian?". I realtiy there is no clear cut line that says this is Christian and this is not. I remeber a while back someone saying something along the lines of "I thought they were catholic, not Christian?". Every sect of Christianity thinks they are the "true" Christians. I think it is exstremly arrogant for someone to say ÿour not a Christian, I am".

I have always understood Christian to be anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus. And that is what the Mormons do, they simply have slightly differnt veiws on his teachings

[Steve_TPF]

Ninefingers has been Pming me on this subject despite my requests that he post his arguments on the board, so I'm pasting it all here where it belongs.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Wroing. Check Shetlan's so called "proof" he takes three entire posts to show. I can't find any of these obscure books. Even if I could, someone's opinion written down doesn't make it so, he is gullible. Check my posts under "O/C" and you will see Proof that the "salamander Letter" that was forged to discredit the church. Alvin Smith was exumed in the 1830's to stop rumours of necromancy; he was found undisturbed. The writter of this letter saying God told Smith to bring part of Alvin's body was a forgery by a Mark Hofmann. He since is in prison for blowing up two people--I think that discredits him.
Forward Message

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Actually I wasn't basing my comment on what shetlan posted, I looked it up for myself and found a few references to Smith being convicted of fraud and necromancy. For which reason I find it amazing that he gathered any followers at at all. I don't know what the "salamander letter" contains, nor did I use it as a basis for my comments.

But why PM me? This would have been a legitimate reply in the Mormonism thread.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

I can't post; that troll Shetlan will try to discredit anythinhg I write on a personal, not professional, basis. No, No, I am not trying to harass you .But, Please, google Salamander letter and references to "Joseph Smith Necromancy". It is in Wilkipedia. I have two books on the S/L--there are FBI files on the forgeries plus the forger blew up two people and is now in prison. You will see the letter was a fraud trying to discredit Smith as a necromancer. His poor brother was exumed in the 1830's to stop rumors of him using his bones--city records of , I believe, Palmyra, NY bear out that Alvin Smith's remains were found undistrubed. OK, hate Mormons, it is anyone's right. I only ask everyone look at the Facts before judging. What Shetlan or anyone found in an obscure book with references may only be opinion. I found some bad-mouthing of Joseph Smith on Luciferlink--a devil website! and, no references.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

As I said, I based my post on references I found independently of shetlan, not on the "salamander letter". Aside from the necromancy charge, Smith was a con-artist who told people he could divine the location of buried treasure - not that he ever found any. It's because he was a professional fraud that I find him unconvincing as a "prophet". That and the story of the golden plates, and the fact that he couldn't produce the same version twice.

It's not that I hate mormons - I don't care what other people believe - but do you honestly think that Smith had any credibility?

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Of course. I'd like to see your references--I am not afraid. I just couldn't find any--just someones opinion on LuciferLink, which had, again, No references and is a devil website anyway.
Ol'Shetlan likes to predicate with "everybody knows this" ; "just look at how..." . Just going on old wive's tales. My Aunt thinks Mormon's aren't "christian"-??-- I think a lot do. I have seen whole States that were anti-mormon--but didn'tknow why. It was tradition, I guess. Shetlan's arguements instead of wearing me down made me research further and have served to reinforce my faith--No, I'm not hard core Mormon, but, as I said, if anyone can show proof of anything to me, I'll listen.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Firstly: I'm not claiming to disprove the existence of a god (I don't believe that's possible anyway,) nor am I questioning your right to religious belief of any kind. These comments relate entirely to Smith and why I believe he was not a prophet, or a "man of god."

There is evidence that Smith was tried on charges relating to his treasure-divining activities. As this page points out, accounts of the charges and verdict differ, but a copy of a court document clearly identifies him as "Joseph Smith the Glass Looker" (Smith used a piece of glass as his divining instrument.) Whether convicted of any offence or not, testimony from witnesses affirmed that he claimed to be able to locate treasure. Conclusion: Smith was a con-artist.

The somewhat bizarre story of the golden plates is hard to swallow on its own, but given that Smith produced a different version the second time around, (the wiki page has plenty of references,) I'm quite convinced he was making the whole thing up.

Smith's personal character is even more dubious than his teachings. His "Revelation" regarding multiple wives seems more convenient than divine. Smith's death in jail was the eventual result of his sending a mob to destroy the printing presses of a newspaper that spoke against him. For this act he was arrested and was awaiting trial at the time of his murder. (Sorry for using wiki, but it cites plenty of external sources.)

Re. necromancy: I found a number of mentions of Smith being convicted of, or practicing necromancy, but on closer examination none cite an original sources. For this reason I am dropping this from the list of charges. I believe however that the accepted records provide ample evidence that Smith was a con-man who used other's religious beliefs and gullibility to suit his own ends.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

This is very interesting! Very good you at least give some references, unlike S. who wouldn't.

I shall have to read them thoroughly. Remeber, you can't take everything Wikipedia says for gospel as it can be edited. What if the writers were Mormon-haters? Also, the bit on Joseph Smiths early divining and fraud charge was a bit nebulous--it fell apart in court. "Divining", "disorderl;y person", and "vagrancy" are no longer crimes anymore, anyway. Remember the "Scarlet Letter"? Adultery used to be a crime, but again, this was Long ago. So, Smith did a little gold finding. Is that any different than a time traveler going to 1820 with a White's metal detector? He would have been burned as a witch!

I'm glad at least you try to keep an open mind. There is no evidence of "necromancy"; S. still won't admit he's wrong. There are lots of rumors about Any religion to cut it down. I never participate in rumors; I don't care what people practice (it's good they practice Something, these days!)so long as it's peaceful and isn't simply constantly cutting-down other faiths.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Agreed you can't trust wiki for everything - that's why you look at the external links! I don't accept anything that can't cite an original source, that's why I'm discounting the necromancy.

"So, Smith did a little gold finding. Is that any different than a time traveler going to 1820 with a White's metal detector? He would have been burned as a witch!"

The point is, he didn't find any! He charged for his services but no treasure was found! This was a scam! He was a professional liar. "Divining" may not be a crime any more, but fraud certainly is.

Anyway, happy reading.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

steve;

Read Most Of The References (good Job!)
However, In Regards To Joseph Smith Found Guilty On Fraud: A Mittimus Was Issued. The Writer Of The Modern Text "concluded" Smith Was Guilty Because Of The Mittimus Although It Does Not Say So Anywhere In The Original Text. According To
Legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mittimus ; A Mittimus Is Merely A Writ Issued To A Peace Officer Of A Person's " Charges." It Does Not Conclude Conviction.
Also, Regarding Smith's Alleged Destruction Of The Presses: Library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/magazines/ensisign/1 Paragraph 9 States: "although He Had Been Previously Acquitted..."
At This Point, There Were A Thounsand People Threatening Smith And His New Faith's Death. The Governor Sent Troops In To Restore Order/prevent Murder. 19 Attempts Had Been Made On Smith's Life
(20 If You Count His Death.) This Seems To Discredit Anything The People Of Illinois Said, If They Advocated Wholesale Murder. Probably They Weren't Above Fabrication, Either. Smith, As Mayor Of Nauvoo, Had Previusly Declared Martial Law--who Wouldn't? After He Was Arrested,smith's Cell Was Opened And The Carthage Sheriff Gave Him A Gun, Probably To Qualm His Own Guilt By Making It Look Like Smith Was To Be Set-up As Being Killed During A Jail Break.

Interesting Stuff On Smith And His Polygamy. I Have Yet To Check References. Wiki Makes Him Look Pretty Bad, But Some Blighter Wrote "contested" In The Successor Slot. Everyone Knows It Was Brigham Young. There Are Hot Discussions About This Page. Just Because It Was Contested Doesn't Change Fact. One Contested My Contestation Of The Contestation (make Sense?) By Quoting Some Church's Doctrine. Tis Church Didn't Exist Until Young Was No Longer President Of The Church-!? So, Manypresidential Elections Were Contested. So What?? Many Of Us In Ca Contested Schwarzenegger's "election"--i Was Never Given A Chance To Vote. Yet, Arnold Is The Governator--you Can't Argue Fact. Brigham Young Led The People To Utah; No One Else Did.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

p.s: How Stupid Of Me--

Make That Reverand Walters Of An Illinois Presbyterian Church Who Wrote Smith Was "convicted". No Where Does It Say In This Lds Text He Was. This Is Rev. Walter's Opinion--i Knew People Who Lived In Nauvoo A Few Years Back, And Found A Whole State Of Mormon-haters--they Didn't Know Why, Though. Tradition? Possibly Their Ancestors Thought The Mormons Would Outvote Them En Bloc? (it Didn't Happen.) See How Koresh Was Treated? (i Am Not Rationalizing David K; I Think He Was Evil--but The Way The Atf Overstepped Authority; Edited Warrants, Lied About Koresh Not Coming Out And Discussing Things--he Did, And Said He Would--make Me Think Of The Early Days Of Any Church Being Harassed By The Government. . Strange, How You Don't Hear About Waco Anymore--is The Atf Covering Their Butts?)

Originally Posted by steve_tpf

is The Atf Covering It's Collective Butt? Most Probably. But Waco Has Nothing To Do With Smith.

Re. Convictions: I'm Not Concerned With Whether He Was Convicted. There Is Enough Evidence To Conclude That He Was A Fraud Who Claimed He Could Find Buried Treasure. (which He Didn't.) He Was A Con-man. Which Makes Him Unreliable As A Prophet.

And If Smith Didn't Order The Destruction Of The Printing Press Then Who Did? Why Would "mormon Haters" Destroy An Anti-mormon Press?

Originally Posted by ninefingers

i'd Like To Read More Before I Write Again, But: It Seems You Are Remembering Accusations But Not Convictions?
I Have A Relative Who Was Accused Of Grand Theft--just Because It Fell All Apart And Never Even Went To Hearing, There Still Was A Record. It Cost Us $5000 To Have It Expunged--becuse So Many People (landlords, Prospective Employers, Etc.) Would See An Accusation On His Record That He'd Have To Explain. See My Logic?
I Don't Care How Many People Accused Smith Of Fraud Or Said He Took Money From Them, The Fact He Wasn't Convicted Due To Lack Of Evidence Is All I Care About.
And, No, He Didn't Destroy The Printing Press Or Order Anyone To Do It. He Was Acquitted--no, I Don't Know Who Did, If Anyone. I Wasn't There. If It Did Happen, It Was Probablty A Setup Or A Radical Follower Of Smith's. If 1.000 Illinoians (city Records) Marched On Joseph Smith And His Followers Swearing To Kill Them And Making 19 Attempts On His Life; They Are Not Above Forging Documents, Falsifying Evidence, False Witness, Sabotaging, Etc.

Originally Posted by steve_tpf

several People Testified As To Smith's Gold-finding Activities, Including His Own Father, And Smith Himself Admitted That He Did It. Whether He Was Convicted Of Fraud Or "disorderly Conduct" Is Not Certain - Accounts Differ. Nor Is That Trial The Only Account Of Him Being A Gold-finder.

You Claim That Smith Didn't Destroy The Printing Press - He Was The Mayor, And It Was Done On His Orders (others Collaborated.)

You Claim He Was Aquitted Of Having The Press Destroyed - False. He Was Awaiting Trial At The Time Of His Murder.

You Asked Me For My Reasons And References, I've Given Them To You. What You Choose To Believe Is Up To You. I Might Reasonably Ask "what Evidence Do You Have That Smith Was Genuine?"

In Any Case, If You Think You Have An Point To Make, Put It In The Thread. That's What This Site Is For.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

i Do Thank You So Much For Providing References. Much Better Than Some I Could Mention.

You Know I Don't Dare Post This, Shetlan Will Just Attack Me Personally Without Looking At References.

Smith Was In Jail On Treason Charges, Having Been Acquitted Of The Press Destruction:"despite Having Been Acquitted Of Charges Related To The June 10, 1844 Destruction Of The Nauvoo Expositor Press, Joseph And Hyrum Faced New Charges Of Riot" (martyrdom At Carthage, Redd Blake, Ensign, June 1994. Pg 30.
"on June 24, Joseph And Hyrum Smith ---rode Toward Carthage (il), Volutarily Surrendering Themselves To County Officials..after The Brothers Were Released On Bail On The Initial Charge, They Were Falsely Charged With Treason Against The State Of Illinois ,arrested And Imprisoned."(teachings Oif The Presidents Of The Church:joseph Smith, 3530.)

This Doesn't Look Like The Act Of A Guilty Man--actually Surrendering Yourself To A Mob Threatening To Kill You. More A Martyr. (see My Last Letter).

I Am Conceding Somewhat To What You Said About Gold Finding--so, His Father Said He Was Divining. So What? He Was A Poor Boy, A Lot Tried Shortcuts To Riches. Again, Just Being Accused Of Fraud Doesn't Make It A Comnviction . See "i Am A Prisoner On A Chain Gang" With Paul Muni. This Is Based On A True Story--many States Abolished Chain Gangs After This Came Out. Also, See My Testimony Of My Falsely Accused Realation, I Mentioned, $5,000 Just To Purge A False Charge--should Have Been Free!

Originally Posted by steve_tpf

Quote:
Originally Posted By Ninefingers
"you Know I Don't Dare Post This, Shetlan Will Just Attack Me Personally Without Looking At References."


That's Because You Haven't Provided Any Evidence To Support Your Claims. You Don't Dare Post Because Your Argument Is Groundless And You Know It Doesn't Stand Up. What Makes You Think I'm Interested?

I've Repeated Myself Several Times And This Is Getting Extremely Tedious. I'm Going To Run Through This One More Time:

Quote:
Originally Posted By Ninefingers
Smith Was In Jail On Treason Charges, Having Been Acquitted Of The Press Destruction:"despite Having Been Acquitted Of Charges Related To The June 10, 1844 Destruction Of The Nauvoo Expositor Press, Joseph And Hyrum Faced New Charges Of Riot" (martyrdom At Carthage, Redd Blake, Ensign, June 1994. Pg 30.
"on June 24, Joseph And Hyrum Smith ---rode Toward Carthage (il), Volutarily Surrendering Themselves To County Officials..after The Brothers Were Released On Bail On The Initial Charge, They Were Falsely Charged With Treason Against The State Of Illinois ,arrested And Imprisoned."(teachings Oif The Presidents Of The Church:joseph Smith, 3530.)


Quoting Directly From Blake:
Originally Posted By

Ensign » 1994 » June - Martyrdom At Carthage By Reed Blake
"on The Morning Of Tuesday, June 25, Events Moved Rapidly. Joseph And Hyrum, Charged With Riot For The June 10 Destruction Of The Nauvoo Expositor Press, Surrendered Themselves To Constable Davis Bettisworth In Carthage Despite Being Acquitted Earlier On Related Charges. Nauvoo City Council Members, Feeling That The Press Threatened Their Lives And Liberties By Inciting Mob Violence Against Them, Had Ruled, Within The Rights They Felt Were Granted By The Nauvoo Charter, That The Newspaper Was A Public Nuisance. As Directed By The City Council, The Prophet, Acting As Mayor, Had Then Ordered The Marshal To Destroy The Press."


So Your Own Source Acknowledges That He Did Order The Destruction Of The Press, Despite Your Earlier Claim To The Contrary. Even If He Was Acquitted Of This Charge, The Fact Remains That He Did It, Which Was One Of My Earlier Points.

Xxxxxxxxxxxx

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Quote:
"I am conceding somewhat to what you said about gold finding--so, his father said he was divining. So what? He was a poor boy, a lot tried shortcuts to riches. Again, just being accused of fraud doesn't make it a comnviction . See "I am a prisoner on a chain Gang" with Paul Muni. This is based on a true story--many states abolished chain gangs after this came out. Also, see my testimony of my falsely accused realation, I mentioned, $5,000 just to purge a false charge--should have been free!"


A: I'm not interested in your relative.
B: You finally admit that he was a "gold finder". Except he didn't find any. Shortcut it may well have been, but it's still fraud, convicted or not.
C: The men who murdered Smith weren't convicted either. So according to your logic, they didn't do it. Which means the "Martyrdom" story is nothing but mormon propaganda.
D: You want a contemporary example? OJ wasn't convicted. Michael Jackson wasn't convicted. Are you 100% certain of those verdicts?

There is ample evidence to support my original claims, ie. that Smith was a con-man and that he ordered the destruction of the press. Read The Destruction of the "Nauvoo Expositor"—Proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council and Mayor.

You meanwhile have provided nothing that discounts my points. Your claims that Smith wasn't a "gold-finder" and didn't destroy the press are false. Neither have you provided me with any reason to believe that Smith was a genuine prophet rather than a talented liar.

While you may not feel confident in posting your arguments on the board I certainly am. So if you persist in this discussion I am going to paste this entire conversation in the thread where it belongs.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Only because I care. My arguements aren't "groundless". It is easy, isn't it, to say things when you are 13, 000 kM away?
Quote:

» 1994 » June - Martyrdom at Carthage By Reed Blake
On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges. Nauvoo City Council members, feeling that the press threatened their lives and liberties by inciting mob violence against them, had ruled, within the rights they felt were granted by the Nauvoo Charter, that the newspaper was a public nuisance. As directed by the city council, the Prophet, acting as mayor, had then ordered the marshal to destroy the press.

Okjaty, I read Blake, seems I was wrong. But the Ensign didn't mention this. Even so, you said he was in jail on Treason charges, as Blake/History of the Church said. You said"for destruction of the press." You are groundless on this one point.

I am conceding somewhat to what you said about gold finding--so, his father said he was divining. So what? He was a poor boy, a lot tried shortcuts to riches. Again, just being accused of fraud doesn't make it a comnviction . See "I am a prisoner on a chain Gang" with Paul Muni. This is based on a true story--many states abolished chain gangs after this came out. Also, see my testimony of my falsely accused realation, I mentioned, $5,000 just to purge a false charge--should have been free!
Quote:
A: I'm not interested in your relative.
B: You finally admit that he was a "gold finder". Except he didn't find any. Shortcut it may well have been, but it's still fraud, convicted or not.
C: The men who murdered Smith weren't convicted either. So according to your logic, they didn't do it. Which means the "Martyrdom" story is nothing but mormon propaganda.
D: You want a contemporary example? OJ wasn't convicted. Michael Jackson wasn't convicted. Are you 100% certain of those verdicts?


No, I am NOt "Finally " admitting. see my earlier letters. Read Them. Don't be an S. or an R.
Don't be childish and put words in my mouth. Smith was no fraud--just being accused, again, read your legal text, doesn't mean innocent Or guilty. I don't believe Smith was guilty, just as some don't think O.J. was either (I Do.)
My relative was a first-hand example that you and S. seem to harp on. Just an allegory. I'd be concerned if you said it happened to a friend of yousr, now? Isn't that the Christian way?

Quote
There is ample evidence to support my original claims, ie. that Smith was a con-man and that he ordered the destruction of the press. Read The Destruction of the "Nauvoo Expositor"—Proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council and Mayor.
You meanwhile have provided nothing that discounts my points. Your claims that Smith wasn't a "gold-finder" and didn't destroy the press are false. Neither have you provided me with any reason to believe that Smith was a genuine prophet rather than a talented liar.

There is no Evidence of being a con man in the BYU files--only the press destruction.

I can't prove he was a prophet. Don't be silly. Faith is not Science--you should know that by now. I don't attack your Faith, do I? Unless you are Scientologist or devil worshiper or Thugee, I don't care.
Why are you so Anti-Mormon? Why do you have so much on it? No, I'm not trying to convert you, just what got you on this?
Quote:
While you may not feel confident in posting your arguments on the board I certainly am. So if you persist in this discussion I am going to paste this entire conversation in the thread where it belongs.
Is this a threat, like S?

No, it's not a threat, it's a statement.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Even so, you said he was in jail on Treason charges, as Blake/History of the Church said. You said"for destruction of the press." You are groundless on this one point.

I'll acknowledge this correction.The article I read said he was awaiting trial on charges relating to the destruction of the press - it didn't say the charge was treason, nor mention an aquittal on the press destruction.

Originally Posted by Reed Blake

On the morning of Tuesday, June 25, events moved rapidly. Joseph and Hyrum, charged with riot for the June 10 destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, surrendered themselves to Constable Davis Bettisworth in Carthage despite being acquitted earlier on related charges.

So your source actually says riot, not treason. Seems I'm not the only one who was mislead here.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

No, I am NOt "Finally " admitting. see my earlier letters. Read Them. Don't be an S. or an R.
Don't be childish and put words in my mouth. Smith was no fraud--just being accused, again, read your legal text, doesn't mean innocent Or guilty. I don't believe Smith was guilty, just as some don't think O.J. was either (I Do.)
My relative was a first-hand example that you and S. seem to harp on. Just an allegory. I'd be concerned if you said it happened to a friend of yousr, now? Isn't that the Christian way?

I'm not interested in your relative because he has nothing to do with this conversation. I wasn't harping on him, you kept bringing him/her up.
You say "Smith was no fraud", but can you provide any evidence of him actually finding buried treasure?

Originally Posted by ninefingers

There is no Evidence of being a con man in the BYU files--only the press destruction.

I can't prove he was a prophet. Don't be silly. Faith is not Science--you should know that by now. I don't attack your Faith, do I? Unless you are Scientologist or devil worshiper or Thugee, I don't care.
Why are you so Anti-Mormon? Why do you have so much on it? No, I'm not trying to convert you, just what got you on this?

1: He took money from people in exchange for promises to find buried treasure. No treasure was found, it was a con. Accept it.

2: I am not religious, this is not a matter of "faith" - it's a question of evidence.

3: I'm not "anti-mormon", I'm simply addressing this topic the way I do any other - looking for references to support the argument. What "gets me" is your persistant denial of the available evidence, and your refusal to post this openly, despite my requests. If you really want to debate then do it in the open. I'm not your pen-pal.

Unfortunately the links didn't come with the cut-and-paste. If anyone actually cares I'll insert them later. I'll also straighten out any quotations. Right now I have to go to work.

[shetlan]

You should see the e-mails he sent me; which he says I can't post because it would violate his first amendment rights

[Steve_TPF]

First amendment rights?

Originally Posted by Wiki

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Help me out here shetlan. How would posting his message violate any of these rights? I'm confused.

[ninefingers]

[quote=Djaqaverlerron;70460e 8 hours.

Couple facts about Mormonism

Also since my sister is a Mormon and I think its complete bullshit I still get to go to heaven. Why you might ask..... because it wouldn't be heaven for my sister if her entire family isn't there.

.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Read her Book of Mormon and Teachings book. There are baptisms for friends, family, even dead friends and family so they will have a chance to enter heaven--it isn't "automatic.". There are group baptisms like this every Sat. in the Mesa temple--want me to give your name?

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Mormonism and Christianity are two completely different faiths, with totally different doctrine, and vastly different teachings.

Calling Mormonism and Christianity the same is like saying Catholics and Taoists are the same.

Wrong. Mormons believe in the King James bible; we are Christians. This is common old wives's tale, so easily disproven.

If we aren't Christians; what are we?.

Show some Proof we don't/aren't , not just a false comparison on nonexistent "facts".

[Misanthropy]

I don't know why anyone thinks the "magic underwear" is a myth. My wife's cousins had to cut the symbols off & sew them on the new ones.

Also, during the marriages in the temple, the priest had to "anoint" their genitals with oil.... Yeah...

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by Misanthropy

I don't know why anyone thinks the "magic underwear" is a myth. My wife's cousins had to cut the symbols off & sew them on the new ones.

Also, during the marriages in the temple, the priest had to "anoint" their genitals with oil.... Yeah...

No, No..marriages are not In the temple, they are merely Sealed in it. And, this thing with the oil--no LDS church does that. Must have been a splinter cult, like the David Koreshes.

The symbols aren't "magic"; just , say, an inverted "vee" means compass dividers and symbolizes a "straight course of the truth and church laws"; a Square indicates "trueness"; a line at the knee means "remember to bow and humble yourself to the Lord"; etc. They are no stranger than the Jewish Yamulkeh (s.p?) or the Roman Collar, or the Latin cross...

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by CHEVY_454_POWER

Quite possibly the best shoot down ever concieved on Bombshock. Excellent reading material Shetlan. I agree with every statement, but I am curious. What book did Jesus say he was strictly against polygamy? JW.

Chevy

WHAT shoot down? S. is firing blanks. I see no references...

1) Smith did not infer "Invisible plates". 5 people saw them, including him, and an Egyptian heiroglyphic scholar verified a translation.
2.) Necromancy did not happen. No proof--see the "Salamander Letter" for the FBI's disproof and jailing of a fraud artist. There was also an exhumation done in 1836, I think, in Palmyra, NY, to stop these rumors--the body, Joseph Smith's brother, Alvin, wasn't disturbed.

There is a lot more I sent S...but I won't reiterate here. It would take too long. No, I'm not trying to make anyone Mormon--but lies and slander/libel and rumors without substance are not warranted here, as S. said himself when he insists on "references."

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

First amendment rights?

Help me out here shetlan. How would posting his message violate any of these rights? I'm confused.

Tsk, Tsk...I thought I could have at least an Adult conversation with YOU, Steve. I did get some good reading, unlike S. who posted/sent nothing. You Did shoot down one belief--but not all. Imagine, saying Joseph Smith was not Murdered simply because his murderers were never caught or accused--then saying an accusation is proof of guilt, and then believing OJ and Michael Jackson guilty when Acquitted...(I believe them both guilty, too, but this is beside the point.) And being unable to see a Metaphor or Allegory...so, my relation must be guilty, also, because he was accused of Grand Theft? Very Rude, too...

If breach of confidentiality were a rule.... I guess in Aus. there is no such thing. Or, something called Subtlety...