Not Even "The Angels" Know

Buy Fioricet online http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws

To Whom it May Concern,

I just noticed that you or someone who was writing to you used my research and quotes without giving me the proper credit or citing my work. I am Michael J. Sullivan "[emphasis MJS]" on your March 21, 2007 post. Please cite: http://members.aol.com/healinglvs/healinglvs/pt-06.htm

I am currently writing a book and was doing some research on how the LDS understands (Deut.18:22) in light of some of these false predictions. Do you know specifically how Pratt handled his or have his interpretation of this passage?

Thanks for your time.

In Christ,
Michael J. Sullivan

"How many cockroaches do you have to find in a bowl of spaghetti?"

A Preponderance of the Evidence

I am cumulatively struck that Apologist must offer

Explanation after Explanation

of this questionable point in Smith's history,
and then this one
and then this one
ad infinitum

Yes, Smith may have been innocent of one or two or thirty of the charges against him.

What are the chances that all the pretty well documented charges are wrong?

Oh, I forgot, they are all from Anti-Mormons.

I learn from RTC here that Smith
was a Legitimate Gold-Digger
because he had the gift of sight.

My apologies for not giving more detailed information previously...

Question

Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking."
1. What is the background to the trial?
2. What was the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith?
3. Why is the 1971 discovery of the Neely and De Zeng bills significant?
4. Why do the critics think that this event discredits Joseph Smith?
5. What does it actually tell us?

Response

Background to the trial

In the spring of 1825 Josiah Stowell visited with Joseph Smith "on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." Josiah Stowell wanted Joseph to help him in his quest to find treasure in an ancient silver mine. Joseph was reluctant, but Stowell persuaded Joseph to come by offering high wages. According to trial documents, Stowell says Joseph, using a seer stone, "Looked through stone and described Josiah Stowell's house and out houses, while at Palmyra at Sampson Stowell's correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it by means of said stone."

Joseph and his father traveled to southern New York in November of 1825. This was after the crops were harvested and Joseph had finished his visit to the Hill Cumorah that year. They participated with Stowell and the company of workers in digging for the mine for less than a month. Finally Joseph persuaded him to stop. "After laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations."

Joseph continued to work in the area for Stowell and others. He boarded at the home of Isaac Hale and met Emma Hale, who was one "treasure" he got out of the enterprise.

What is the 1826 trial?

In March of the next year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely. The supposed trial record came from Miss Pearsall. "The record of the examination was torn from Neely's docket book by his niece, Emily Persall, and taken to Utah when she went to serve as a missionary under Episcopalian bishop Daniel S. Tuttle." This will be identified as the Pearsall account although Neely possessed it after her death.

It is interesting that the first published version of this record didn't appear until after Miss Pearsall had died.

William D. Purple took notes at the trial and tells us, "In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, ...were greatly incensed against Smith, ...saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire... They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood."

Whereas the Pearsall account says: "Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, [Josiah Stowell's nephew] who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter...brought before court March 20, 1826"

So, we have what has been called "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith", even though the records show that this wasn't actually a trial. For many years LDS scholars Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley and others expressed serious doubts that such a trial had even taken place.

Why are the 1971 discoveries important?

It was easy to cast doubt on the reality of the 1826 trial until the bills from Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng were found in 1971. These documents were removed from their purported site of discovery by Dr. Wesley Walters, a well-known anti-Mormon author.

Walters wrote, "Because the two 1826 bills had not only suffered from dampness, but had severe water damage as well, Mr. Poffarl hand-carried the documents to the Yale University's Beinecke Library, which has one of the best document preservation centers in the country." The problem with this action is, once you have removed a document from a historical setting and then try to restore it to the same setting, you can't prove that you have not altered the document.

The actions of Walters and Poffarl compromised the documents. By having the documents removed and only returned under threat of a lawsuit by the County, it opened the possibility that they could be forged documents. They are generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt

Why do the critics use this event?
Interestingly, critics of Joseph Smith's time ignored the 1826 trial.
1. They didn't bring it up in another trial in the same area in 1830.
2. It was not mentioned in any of the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in 1833, even though he was diligently looking for every piece of dirt he could find.
3. Although the trial was briefly mentioned in 1831, it was not mentioned again in a published record for 46 years.

The attraction of this event for a later generation of critics, however, lies in the fact that:
• Society had changed
• Seer Stones were no longer acceptable
• Treasure digging was considered abnormal
• Spiritual gifts were reinterpreted as manifestations of the occult

Many people of the 1800s did not see any differences between what later generations would label as "magic" and religiously-driven activities recorded in the Bible—such as Joseph's silver cup (see Genesis 44:2,5) in which 'he divineth' (which was also practiced by the surrounding pagans and referred to as hydromancy), or the rod of Aaron and its divinely-driven power (Exodus 7:9-12).

The Bible records that Jacob used rods to cause Laban's cattle to produce spotted, and speckled offspring (see Genesis 30:37-39)&mdash one can only imagine what the critics would say should Joseph Smith have attempted such a thing!

In Joseph Smith's own day other Christian leaders were involved in practices which today's critics would call 'occultic.' Quinn, for instance, observes that in "1825, a Massachusetts magazine noted with approval that a local clergyman used a forked divining rod.... Similarly, a Methodist minister wrote twenty-three years later that a fellow clergymen in New Jersey had used a divining rod up to the 1830s to locate buried treasure and the 'spirits [that] keep guard over buried coin'...."

It is important to realize that every statement about "magic" or the "occult" by LDS authors is a negative one. Joseph and his contemporaries would likely have shocked and dismayed to be charged with practicing "magic." For them, such beliefs were simply how the world worked. Someone might make use of a compass without understanding the principles of magnetism.

This mysterious, but apparently effective, device was useful even if its underlying mechanism was not understood. In a similar way, activities of the early 1800s or Biblical times which later generations would view skeptically were simply thought of as part of how the world worked.

But, it is a huge leap from this realization to charging that Joseph and his followers believed they were drawing power from anything but a divine or proper source.

What does the 1826 trial tell us?

What records exist?
We have five records of the 1826 trial. And these were published in eight documents.

1. Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate

2.Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate

3.1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)

4.Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (niece)
• Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall publishes in Frazer's Magazine (London)
• Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)
• 1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
• Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)

5. May 3, 1877 - W. D. Purple Chanango Union
It may be that Purple saw the publication in the Eclectic Magazine and that is why he published his account a few years later. There are no complete overlaps in the accounts; we will look at the similarities and differences.

Finally, we have the bills by Judge Neely and Constable Da Zeng which provide some additional useful details.

Document provenance

We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:
1. Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
2. She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
3. Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
4. Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873.
5. Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death
6. Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
7. Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
8. Then the record was lost.

It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.
]
Do we have a court record?

We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all.
1. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials.
2. No witness signatures—they were required in an official record.
3. It appears to be a pretrial hearing.
4. Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts.

Why were the various records made?

This is the reason that the people stated for why they were putting forth this information.
1. Benton: more complete history of their founder
2. Cowdery: private character of our brother
3. Noble: explain the character of the Mormons
4. Marshal: preserve a piece of information about the prophet
5. Purple: as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism
6. Tuttle: [to show] In what light he appeared to others
7. Judge Neely: to collect fees

Unsurprisingly, those who provided these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer, and most of that bias is directed against Joseph Smith.

Who brought the charges?

If we look at the individuals bringing the charges, we have the following: Benton (1831): The Public Cowdery (1835): very officious person Noble (1842): Civil authority Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman Judge Neely: The Public
Note that the agreement of Marshall and Tuttle is misleading because they are essentially quoting the same source.
Whether it was Josiah Stowell's sons or his nephew Peter G. Bridgman, it seems to be close family members. We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church.

Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."
Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?"

What was the charge against Joseph Smith?

The charge is listed in the various accounts as:
1. Benton (1831): a disorderly person
2. Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
3. Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
4. Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
5. Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
6. Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
7. Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

Hugh Nibley indicated how it would be strange that he could be charged without visible means of livelihood, since he was being employed by Stowell and others.

The portion of the statute that would seem to apply was enacted by New York in 1813.
...all persons who not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle without employment, and also all persons who go about from door to door, or place themselves in the streets, highways or passages, to beg in the cities or towns where they respectively dwell, and all jugglers, and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found; ... shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons.

What is a juggler? It used to be that a person skilled in sleight of hand was called a juggler, whereas today we would call them a "sleight of hand magician." Thus, a "juggler" was a con man; someone using his 'stage magic' talents to defraud.

But what if you weren't pretending to discover lost goods? What if you actually had a gift where you "could discern things invisible to the natural eye" Could you then be judged guilty of this statute?

How many witnesses testified?

As far as the number of witnesses we have the following:
1. Benton (1831): not mentioned
2. Cowdery (1835): not mentioned
3. Marshall (1873): Five quoted, charges for seven witnesses
4. Tuttle (1882): Six
5. Purple (1877): Four
6. Constable Philip De Zeng: Twelve

What is particularly interesting here is that Tuttle and Marshall are supposedly quoting from the same document. Marshall only quotes 5 witnesses, but at the end, the charges are listed for seven witnesses. The fee was 12-1/2 cents per witness. Eighty-seven and ½ cents divided by twelve ½ cents per witness, gives us seven witnesses. By combining the Purple and Pearsall accounts we can arrive at seven witnesses, and also a motive for not including all the witnesses or letting the record be examined. It is unknown why the constable would have listed twelve witnesses, unless that is the number he summoned to the proceedings. Seven would seem to be the correct number of those that testified.

What witness is excluded from some accounts?

Purple does add a witness that hadn't been included by Marshall or Tuttle: Joseph Smith, Sr. Maybe they didn't want to include the testimony of Joseph's father because his testimony was more religious in nature. He spoke of Joseph's "wonderful triumphs as a seer", that "both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre," and "he trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him." It is easy to see why this testimony wouldn't be included in a record where you are trying to show that Joseph Smith was a person trying to acquire work as a money digger. Which might be the reason the Tuttle and Marshall omitted the Joseph Smith Sr. testimony.

What verdict was brought against Joseph?
1. Benton: tried and condemned ... designedly allowed to escape
2. Cowdery: honorably acquitted
3. Noble: was condemned, took leg bail
4. Marshall: guilty?
5. Tuttle: guilty?
6. Purple: discharged
7. Constable De Zeng: not a trial

Noble's statement is hearsay, since there is no evidence that he actually attended this trial. Furthermore, his statement and Benton's statement can't be taken as an indication that Joseph was judged guilty. For example, in Joseph's 1830 trial he was acquitted. The court said that they "find nothing to condemn you, and therefore you are discharged." Then Mr Reid testifies, "They then proceeded to reprimand him severely, not because anything derogatory to his character in any shape had been proven against him by the host of witnesses that had testified during the trial."

The verdict indicated by Marshall and Tuttle is questionable. It seems to be appended as an afterthought. Throughout the document Joseph is referred to as the "prisoner", then after the last testimony, we have one sentence in which he is named a defendant, "And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty."

Here we have suddenly a declaratory statement that is completely out of character with the rest of the Pearsall document. Also, if this were actually a trial, Joseph wouldn't have testified against himself as the first witness.

The examination was not a trial

Wesley P. Walters has demonstrated that this is not a trial. The Constable's charges of "19 cents attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail' ...and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction, twenty-five cents."

In the Tanners' anti-Mormon Salt Lake City Messenger, they stated, "Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with 'an examination.' In a New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an 'examination' the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are'"
In all cases but one the witnesses were "sworn", whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley's charges actually uses that precise terminology, "in examination of above cause". Therefore, since this wasn't a trial, one cannot have a guilty verdict.

Summary of testimony
• Joseph Smith, Jr.: In the Purple account he tells about finding his stone and he exhibits his stone. In the Pearsall record it talks about how Stowell came and got Joseph, "had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school;" He informed Stowell where to find treasures, and buried coins and that he did it for the previous three years. But Joseph did not solicit and declined having anything to do with the business.
• Joseph Smith Sr.: This testimony is only in the Purple account. We discussed earlier how he felt this power showed that Joseph was a seer and that Joseph Sr. was mortified by the use of the sacred power and that he hoped that eventually it would get used correctly. Since this testimony puts Joseph in a positive light it is understandable why it wasn't included in the published versions of the Pearsall account.
• Josiah Stowell: His employer's testimony in the Purple account has Josiah say that Joseph could see 50 feet below the surface, described many circumstances to confirm his words. He said, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

We go to the Pearsall record, for a slightly different account of the Josiah Stowell testimony. It tells how Joseph "looked through stone, and described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone;" Josiah tells about Joseph's being employed part time. It also contains the part that "he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone." He talked about finding something for Deacon Attelon that looked like gold ore. Josiah talked about Mr. Bacon burying some money and that Joseph described how there was a feather buried with the money. They found the feather but the money was gone. Josiah said that he "had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill."
• Horace Stowell: This testimony is only found in the Neely record. It is a short testimony that describes where a chest of dollars was buried in Winchester County and that Joseph marked the size of the chest with leaves on the ground.
• Arad Stowell: This witness went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

There are only three testimonies that are duplicated in both the Purple and Pearsall accounts. They are Joseph Smith, Josiah Stowel and Jonathan Thompson. In the Purple account Thompson said that he could not remember finding anything of value. He stated that Joseph claimed there was a treasure protected by sacrifice and that they had to be armed by fasting and prayer. They struck the treasure with a shovel. One man placed his hand on the treasure, but it gradually sunk out of reach. Joseph believed there was a lack of faith or devotion that caused the failure. They talked about getting the blood from a lamb and sprinkling it around.

Interestingly, the same witness in the Pearsall record says that Joseph indicated where the treasure was. He looked in the hat and told them how it was situated. An Indian had been killed and buried with the treasure. So this detail matches with the Purple account. The treasure kept settling away. Then Joseph talked about salt that could be found in Bainbridge and described money that Thompson had lost 16 years ago. Joseph described the man that had taken it and what happened to the money.

There is nothing mentioned about sacrificing sheep or not having sufficient faith and so forth. The Pearsall record is supposedly a more complete written record, but it doesn't have the bleeding sheep, or fasting and prayer that characterizes the Purple account.

Conclusion

A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:
1. The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination
2. The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims.
3. There were seven witnesses.
4. The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.
5. Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight

It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell. Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed. The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture.

Understanding the context of the case removes any threat it may have posed to Joseph's prophetic integrity.

Prevalence of Fraud in Organized Religion

Pheadrus, you are correct.
Every powerful and established church has engaged in fraud, cover-up, and deception in order to consolidate and preserve their power.

Catholic history is rife with heinous examples, many much more heinous than Smith's two-bit swindles.

In fact, it is sort of embarrassing for us ex-mormons to admit that Smith's frauds were so artless - have you LOOKED at that Book of Abraham? How could he think anyone would buy that story?

Betty, Henry, Huff:

Enjoyed your rejoinders to RTC, though I have no faith that we will see a material change there.

At any rate, Huff:

JS's history as a confidence man, with a penchant for occultism, is certainly no secret to the church leadership. When Mark Hoffman claimed to have found a letter linking JS to such a practice, (The Salamander Letter), LDS leaders made arrangements to buy it, to prevent its being released to the general public. The letter turned out to be fraudulent. But, the real lesson here was that church leaders did not simply say, "No way, Joseph Smith would not engage in such practices, thus the letter MUST be a hoax." They believed Hoffman's claims to authenticity, and acted in such fashion as to take church member's money and use it to seek to hide this information from those same members. Point being; The leaders themselves KNOW about this aspect of their founder's life. Wouldn't you love to know what else the church has in its vaults?

Now, I don't want to single the LDS church out on practicing this type of deception. I am confident that, had printing presses and people who knew how to use them, existed in Jesus' day, or 700 years later in Muhammed's, and to the extent that they did in 19th century America, the salad days of those religions would be as full of this type of undermining information as we see in LDS history. You do have to give it to JS on one count; it took a lot of sand to try to create a great religion in a literary world. Those other founders had an easier go of it.

Joseph Smith and Ralph Waldo Emerson

Compare for a moment these two great exemplars of the American Spirit from the 19th Century.

One trained for the ministry, led an exemplary life, wrote essays that are considered by many to be in the first class of American literature and indeed philosophy.

The other was convicted of Glass-looking. Was a treasure hunter. Surreptiously married 35 women and then said God told him to. Had a vision that he changed the details on 4 times. "Translated" egyptian funereal documents in a laughable way. Gave an account of residents of the Americas that has been multiply disproved by geneticists and archeologists.

Who would you follow? Whose precepts and scheme of heavenly reward would a rational human adopt?

As I said to Smith myself: "I knew Ralph Emerson. Ralph was a friend of mine. You are no Ralph Emerson."

Bottom line: Joseph Smith was charged as a "disorderly person and an impostor" in 1826. According to Judge Neeley, Joseph admitted, "That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health". The record concludes: "And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty."

For a complete examination of all of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the court record, read this: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm Don't take the article's word for anything, but look into all of the evidence yourself. The reader will find that it is quite misleading to suggest that Joseph was never found guilty of any wrong doing. Glass looking was the profession of a con-man.

Here is a little more from the above link:

"An examination of the law concerning "disorderly persons" leads to the conclusion that Joseph Smith would have had a very difficult time avoiding conviction if he had remained for his trial at the Court of Special Sessions. According to A New Conductor Generalis, published in 1819, page 108, the following would be "deemed disorderly persons":

"All Jugglers;
"All who pretend to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretend to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found;... 1 R. L. 1813. p. 114."

Webster's 1828 dictionary gives this definition for the word juggle:

1. To play tricks by slight of hand; to amuse and make sport by tricks, which make a false show of extraordinary powers.
2. To practice artifice or imposture.

Joseph Smith's practice of "glass looking" — i.e., using a seer stone to divine things not seen by the natural eye would certainly be viewed as making a "false show of extraordinary powers." The printed transcript says that Smith was charged with being "a disorderly person and an impostor." Joseph Smith's practice of "glass looking" would also fall into the category of a "crafty science" mentioned in the law. Moreover, in the examination before Justice Neely, Smith admitted that he had "been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years." As the reader can see, the law deemed anyone who used a "crafty science... to discover where lost goods may be found" as a "disorderly person."

My Dear RTC

This post exists in order for us to have a reasoned and informative discussion about matters of Faith.

To do so, it is useful to demonstrate
* cogent reasoning
* relatively understandable prose

When a poster fails in these two criteria, it is the duty of others to point out that failing.

You WASTE OUR time when you do either.

A believer such as John D presents his beliefs and facts in a way that is both cogent and understandable.

I often don't agree with his conclusions, but he is comprehensible.

When you are not, others have a right to point that out. And it DOES actually further the discussion, or would if it had any effect on your postings.

With Much Love,
Henry JAMES

RTC
in your quote
"It is futile to discourse upon the subject of the divinity of Jesus Christ with those that do not accept even the concept of higher intelligence"

The reasoning is exactly BACKwards,
at least for any honest seeker of truth.

A true truth-seeker states a proposition,
e.g. Jesus is Divine,
gives some explanation of what that means
e.g. he was resurrected, and will resurrect us

and then proceeds to present the evidence that the proposition is true.

The evidence in short is:
* The Bible says so (though virtually nothing in the Bible is verifiable in any meaningful historical sense, and there is NOT ONE "fact" about Jesus' life that is verifiable except perhaps that someone like him actually existed)

So one must accept it on Faith, because RTC says so.

No wonder Utah has a reputation for having the most gullible citizens in the country. Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, RTC?

Now it is fine for YOU to believe it. But to expect anyone else to is quite a stretch.

The people who do believe it, by and large, do because their Mother told them to.

Henry James -

I will take that as the epitomy of compliments that one could receive, although I realize that you did not send it as such.

It would be so much nicer IF these threads could be used for what their intended purpose had been and that was to strive understanding and not simply to be critical of one another.

I am sorry that this is what I see happening here. I hope we may return to the former soon.

Do we not all have more positive things to accomplish in the limited time we each have in a day? Relationship building is much more enjoyable, don't you agree?
rtc

RTC
Your last post, which begins "It is futile.."
is the most convoluted piece of prose I have read in 200 years.

Are you quoting Joseph Smith? I can't believe that you could write *quite* that badly yourself.

Not that I am a literary critic or anything.

"t is futile to discourse upon the subject of the divinity of Jesus Christ with those that do not accept even the concept of higher intelligence"

Then stop trying to do it. Especially when you do so poorly at it.

It is futile to discourse upon the subject of the divinity of Jesus Christ with those that do not accept even the concept of higher intelligence, but that of mortal man and his acquisition unto knowledge and wisdom as themselves gods.

The supreme in self-idol worship is to completely deny the existence of one who is in control of that which man cannot know of himself. Where self-reliance is not possible without the need or aid "from" one greater than self, suggesting faith in an unseen relationship which would require humility.

Contrary to prideful, natural man.

Such a pity to those who profess to be seekers of truth, for never will they reach that pinnacle of which they desire in their god.

Continued evidence to twist the truth displays itself in the posting of the April 2007 Ensign article -

"My Son Also Lives".

Those versed in the doctrine that is taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, and which is testified of by the author of this article know that not only is this article testifying of the reality and assurance of life after death with our loved ones because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ who was the first fruits of the resurrection, but that all will be raised unto immortality and eternal life if we will follow Him!

And because of other glorious truths that were restored through the prophet Joseph Smith the mother of this article was also testifying of the fact that we as members of the lds church believe that little children are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ and have no need of baptism until the age of accountability, which is 8 years old.

So little children are considered innocent and pure, therefore if they die before the age of accountability they return directly to the bosom of God.

Therefore, with an understanding of this doctrine, although this mother sorrowed for the temporary separation of the infant which was in fulfillment of her patriarchal blessing... she rejoiced upon realizing that through the atonement of Jesus Christ her sweet precious child was literally perfect in Christ and awaited her reunion and a complete fulfillment of that joy which was actually more that she could have possibly imagined in the original patriarchal blessing she received!

She was testifying of revelation and covenants fulfilled by and through the power of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Quite the opposite of that which was suggested.

Notice that THIS was the response to my post and NOT to the rebuttal that I posted???

For those who will wait patiently upon the Lord in faith, when in the face of the most adverse of conditions... His words will be sure, beyond anything that we can of ourselves comprehend.

Heavenly Child Abuse

Concerned's quote from Crossen
"an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well."

Is perhaps more reveletory than he thinks.

Think Evolution: most species, including humans, practice infanticide in certain circumstances (scarcity etc).

Modern Civilisation considers Child Sacrifice Politically incorrect,
but the symbolic and atavistic resonances are still rampant in the fundamentalist sects:

God will condemn his children to Eternal Damnation if they don't follow his orders, or are too weak.

We threaten the children into submission, because we know deep down that if they don't obey, we can always sacrifice them.

Think again about the passages in Deuteronomy where we are authorized to kill our children if they talk back too much.

Too many mouths to feed anyway: why put up with the trouble.

Here is Professor Crossan's take on Jesus' atonement: From his book, Who is Jesus?:

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Professor Crossan's words of wisdom should be put on the front page of every global newspaper every day as a lesson in reality.

RTC,

you should be getting a call from your church headquarters any day now. this was way over the top. way way way out there.

rtc, have you not paid attention to anything that has been said to you? honestly, you start out with this: "The anti-Mormon movement is a prominent and historied example of such a coalition. Books, websites and speakers dedicated against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints1 number in the thousands and spring from myriad organizations, from previous church members to the government. Criticisms of the church's early leadership, specifically statements made by or the actions of claimed LDS prophets,2 are particularly common. This is not surprising considering the puzzle of the establishment of the LDS church,3 and the fact that attacking a movement's source may be the most direct way to attempt to disprove it.

The fervor and innate bias of those participating in any of these "anti" activities, be it politics, religion or entertainment, require that the truth-seeker carefully investigate claims to obtain objective and verified facts...."

the least you could do is read it and edit the little numbers from the footnote references. clearly you are learning as you go and googling your assoff to find this stuff.

anti anti anti. everyone is anti. that is how hinckley wants it and why he kicked your chair out from under you. its all for or all against, by their definition. the reality is quite different. the world is not so black and white. historians are more than just anti or mormon, believe it or not.

people here have shown you the facts, and you respond with accusations that these facts, though not disclosed by the church openly, dont discredit what smith has done. people here have pointed out the prophecies of smith and others and shown how ridiculous they were, and you respond with a knowimony. again, you are the wall. undentable. trained in reciting the company line. you do it well. hats off to you.

nobody is asking you to denounce the church, btw.
=======================================
before rtc decided to get us a witness, there was a discussion of patriarchal blessings, which, it seemed to be agreed, were personal revelations/prophecies.

here is a story from the lds churches latest monthly publication about those blessings:

My Son Also Lives

By Brenda Hunt

Brenda Hunt, “My Son Also Lives,” Ensign, Apr. 2007, 71–72

A woman in my ward taught me a priceless lesson about the sweet peace that comes from a sure faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

This woman’s patriarchal blessing promised her the joys of motherhood. But years passed while she and her husband prayed and waited for children. Finally, their prayers were answered. For nine months their lives were filled with joyous preparations. They painted a special room; bought furniture, clothes, and other baby supplies; and offered many prayers. The doctors said she would never be able to have another baby after this one, so her dreams were wrapped up in this child.

The day came when this sister gave birth and heard the cry of her baby.

“It’s a beautiful boy,” the nurse said.

The mother closed her eyes and offered a prayer of thanksgiving. Four minutes later, the baby was dead.

I saw her in sacrament meeting two weeks afterward. As the music director, she walked to the front of the chapel and took her seat beside the organ. Under her direction we sang “I Know That My Redeemer Lives” (Hymns, no. 136). She stood straight and tall, her face bright, her testimony radiating. At times the words came with great difficulty for her. She swallowed and pressed her lips together. Then she stopped singing, but her arm continued to move, conducting us as we sang.

Later, with tears coursing down her cheeks, this sister bore her testimony in these simple words: “I know that my Redeemer lives. I know that He is just and that He loves us. And because He lives, my son also lives.”

In her faith I saw an assurance of the reality of our Redeemer, whose Atonement for us makes immortality and eternal life possible. Her son had been taken, but she knew that he would be restored to her someday.

I hope this magnifies your knowledge on this subject somewhat.

Here is the intro and the conclusion of an enlightening bit of education for you. Perhaps you might consider that you have been misinformed?

The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Brandon U. Hansen

Motivation

Much like politics and the entertainment industry, religion is rife with controversy and dispute. Protestants and Catholics argue over the teachings of the Bible, atheists and the devout theorize over the purpose of life and the creation of the world, and Buddhists and Hindus quibble over whether the Ultimate Existence consists of everything or nothing. In some instances this discord erupts to such an extent against a particular religion that it develops its own identity; those who might typically disagree unite in their common disapproval of another.

The anti-Mormon movement is a prominent and historied example of such a coalition. Books, websites and speakers dedicated against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints1 number in the thousands and spring from myriad organizations, from previous church members to the government. Criticisms of the church's early leadership, specifically statements made by or the actions of claimed LDS prophets,2 are particularly common. This is not surprising considering the puzzle of the establishment of the LDS church,3 and the fact that attacking a movement's source may be the most direct way to attempt to disprove it.

The fervor and innate bias of those participating in any of these "anti" activities, be it politics, religion or entertainment, require that the truth-seeker carefully investigate claims to obtain objective and verified facts....

CONCLUSION:

The evidence from published accounts and public records seem to allow one to be fairly certain in concluding that JS was detained and brought before Judge Neely under the disorderly person accusation. However, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that JS was ever brought before the "Court of Special Sessions" necessary to indict or hand out a verdict.

Further, the use of the Pearsall accounts as official "court records" by Fawn Brodie and others is historically insecure, as the original record is not available for examination or verification. Even if verified, the Pearsall accounts provide incomplete witness accounts, are sometimes self-contradictory, and contradict the only published first-hand account in many critical details.

The accounts are all well removed from the occurence, the earliest being published forty-seven years after the fact. Given the excitement and negative publicity surrounding the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Mormon Church in 1830, the lack of published concern over the 1826 incident casts doubt as to its significance. Instead, the increased interest in the incident almost fifty years later seems to coincide with a changing culture in which things such as "seer stones" and digging for treasure were not as publically acceptable.

Overall, the accounts taken in context paint a picture of a boy being pulled in two directions: on one hand, the greed of the money diggers, and on the other, the perceived call of God. The incident detailed herein, in conjunction with the related trials of 1830, is indicative of the troubles JS faced due to activites involved in the former, and the verbiage and character of his publications and writings throughout the remainder of his life are proof that he eventually chose the latter.

For complete report click on link... fascinating and well done research.

http://www.omninerd.com/2006/06/11/articles/55

"A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:

The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination.

The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims.

There were seven witnesses.

The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.

Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight.

"It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell.

Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed.

The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture.

"Understanding the context of the case removes any threat it may have posed to Joseph's prophetic integrity."

I hope this gives a little more confirmation contrary to that which resulted from previous posted information regarding the civil war prophecy.

I believe that the Lord will yet fulfill all his words as revealed through Joseph Smith in section 87 as he has been quite spot on so far.

In fact, as far as the Second Coming goes, I imagine of course that it will be prior to that great event, which at this point I will look forward to seeing ya all there!

Jeff Lindsay has done a great job of outlining the civil war prophecy contained in section 87.

On Dec. 25, 1832, Joseph received the following revelation about the American Civil War, now printed as Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

7 That the cry of the Saints, and of the blood of the Saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of sabbath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.

Beginning in the 1830s, LDS missionaries carried manuscript copies of the above revelation with in their missionary journeys, and "frequently read it to their congregations in various parts of the United States" (Roberts, p. 315). The entire revelation was printed in 1851 in Liverpool, England, in a pamphlet entitled, "The Pearl of Great Price." This was a decade before the first shot of the Civil War on April 12, 1861. Thus, the prediction was made 28 years before its fulfillment, and was printed and circulated in England and in the United States at least ten years before. Further, while speaking in Ramus, Illinois, on April 2, 1843, Joseph said: "I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. It may probably arise through the slave question.

This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832." Was Joseph's prophecy just a case of noting existing tensions and making obvious extrapolations? Hardly! While there had been tensions between the South and the North, including talk of secession, hardly anyone seriously thought that civil war would erupt. Americans had great faith in their nation and in democracy. In fact, there were members of the Church who were so shaken by the "ridiculous" nature of Joseph's civil war prophecy that they left the Church, rejecting him as a false prophet. Even if Joseph were trying to make something out of trends and currents he saw in society, the many specific details of his prophecy suggest that more than reason and guesswork were needed to be so accurate. Let's consider the details that he accurately predicted:

The war would begin with the rebellion of South Carolina. It would cause the death and misery of many souls. The Southern States would be divided against the Northern States. The Southern States would call upon other nations for assistance, even upon the nation of Great Britain. Great Britain would call upon other nations for assistance
War would eventually be poured out upon all nations.

Now in December of 1832 there was controversy involving South Carolina and the issue of states' rights. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. President Andrew Jackson argued against their position. With much controversy in the air, it would seem logical that Joseph be stirred to ponder the events of the day and inquire of the Lord, resulting in the revelation of Dec. 1832. But there was no reasonable expectation of war at that time, or even in 1851 when the prophecy was more widely publicized. Can anyone offer evidence from writings of American statesmen or scholars in 1832, 1843, or 1851 that make such predictions? Did other wise minds of the day foresee what Joseph saw? Neither a scholar or statesmen, the uneducated 27-year old man, Joseph Smith, saw what would happen by the spirit of revelation. It is a fact of history that South Carolina took the initiative that led to the rebellion of the Southern States and that the war began in South Carolina.

Reacting negatively to the election of Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina's leaders convened on Dec. 20, 1860 and passed an ordinance of secession. Newly elected Governor Pickins then declared "the dissolution of the union between the state of South Carolina and the other states under the name of the United States." Ten other states later joined South Carolina, but she was the first to rebel. The Civil War was the bloodiest this country has ever seen, causing about 400,000 deaths. The South did enlist the aid of Great Britain and also sought help from France (Great Britain, as I recall, also encouraged France to assist the South). Later, after war had been poured out on the nations of the earth, Great Britain found herself threatened by Nazi Germany and called upon other nations of the earth for her defense. After the Civil War, international intrigues and wars grew to increasing severity, with ghastly international scenes of horror during World War I and World War II, with dozens of other wars having been fought and going on at the moment. War has always been on the earth, but the scale of destruction since the Civil War has grown sharply, and war in the past century has become increasingly multinational rather than bilateral. Truly, war has been poured out on all nations.Joseph said that "after many days" slaves would rise up against their masters. I don't think that referred to the Civil War, but to later events, perhaps events that I have seen in my lifetime. Uprisings of repressed peoples in many Communist nations and other authoritarian states may have been meant in the prophecy. Past and future uprisings of some groups in the United States may also be meant. During the Civil War itself, however, there were relatively few instances of slaves rising up against their masters. The prophecy, however, says "after many days" (meaning, I think, many days after the prophesied war had begun), not "during the Civil War."Orson Pratt was a young missionary who told others of Joseph's civil war prophecy long before it occurred. He was mocked for it, as were many others. Here are his words (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 135. as cited by Otten & Caldwell in Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants, Vol.2, pp.93-94):

This prophecy has been printed and circulated extensively in this and other nations and languages. It pointed out the place where it should commence in South Carolina. That which I declared over the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and many other parts in the East, when but a boy, came to pass twenty-eight years after the revelation was given. When they were talking about a war commencing down here in Kansas, I told them that was not the place; I also told them that the revelation had designated South Carolina, "and," said I, "you have no need to think that the Kansas war is going to be the war that is to be so terribly destructive in its character and nature. No, it must commence at the place the Lord has designated by revelation."

What did they have to say to me? They thought it was a Mormon humbug, and laughed me to scorn, and they looked upon that revelation as they do upon all others that God has given in these latter days -- as without divine authority. But behold and lo! in process of time it came to pass, again establishing the divinity of this work, and giving another proof that God is in this work, and is performing that which He spoke by the mouths of the ancient prophets, as recorded in the Book of Mormon before any Church of Latter-day Saints was in existence.

My Dear RTC

Does the Church know what you are doing on this site?

You are illustrating, again and again, the most basic errors in evaluating information.

You never learn, and you are seemingly capable of learning, so it must be willful.

"Trust but Verify." Remember Ronald Reagan quoting Gorbachev.

"Consider the source." What does the Mormon Church want you to believe.

You have made yourself into a parody of a human being who is able to do the most basic information processing.

Fool me once, twice, sixty times, 1,000,325 times.

Just like your church leaders, I am only trying to save you, I reveal this to you out of love, not out of malice. I have not an ounce of hate towards you. You amaze me.

RTC,

You obviously have not looked at the transcripts from the court records from Joseph's trials. I have. You must have gotten all of that from Mormon propoganda. I suggest looking at the actual historical documents. You'll find that in many cases you have been lied to. Don't claim that you have not been lied to until you look at the actual court records. They are available. Pay particular attention to the glass looker trial.

I realize that the topic of this thread is on the Second Coming of Christ. Unfortunately, there are those that would rather choose to take the opportunity to use this thread for anti-mormon opportunity instead of what On Faith was intended.

Personally, I would much prefer to discuss my beliefs that the lds church teaches regarding the second coming of which many wonderful truths have been revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith, but for now I will attempt to offer a brief history of some of the trials that the prophet was involved in.

It is not possible here to go through each account in detail, but that those who would tell the history in a different light do have their motives for doing so is obvious as this thread manifest...

I would suggest that those wanting more information, that they go to a source that is not originating from those that were against the church back then or now.

Unfortunately those involved with most of what was happening in real-time and that made legal record of things that transpired, in many cases particularly in Missouri were not friends of the church and were actually their persecutors.

The old saying "consider the source" applies to much of the early history in these regards. At Carthage, there was a mob of about 200 men involved in the murder of the prophet and his brother.

Would you consider these credible witnesses for the prophet?

LEGAL TRIALS OF JOSEPH SMITH
by Joseph I. Bentley

Joseph Smith believed that his enemies perverted legal processes, using them as tools of religious persecution against him, as they had been used against many of Christ's apostles and other past martyrs. Although he often gained quick acquittals, numerous "vexatious and wicked" lawsuits consumed his time and assets, leading to several incarcerations and ultimately to his martyrdom.

Beginning soon after his ministry began and continuing throughout his life, Joseph Smith was subjected to approximately thirty criminal actions and at least that many civil suits related to debt collection or failed financial ventures.

The first charge of being a "disorderly person" involved treasure hunting for hire, brought against him at South Bainbridge, New York, in 1826 by a disgruntled Methodist preacher related to Josiah Stowell, Joseph's employer. When Stowell refused to testify against him at the trial, Joseph was discharged.

In July 1830 in the same venue, Joseph was tried and acquitted by another magistrate on charges of "being a disorderly person, of setting the county in an uproar by preaching the Book of Mormon, etc." (HC 1:88). The trial ended at midnight.

The next day, he was seized and tried in neighboring Broome County on the same charges, as well as charges of casting out a devil and using pretended angelic visitations to obtain property from others. Following a twenty-three-hour trial involving some forty witnesses, Joseph was again acquitted (HC 1:91-96).

After the Church moved to Kirtland, Ohio, in 1831, several religious-based charges were prosecuted against Smith and other LDS leaders, but were dismissed on the grounds listed following each charge: assault and battery (self-defense), performing marriages without a valid license (one was procured), attempted murder or conspiracy (lack of evidence), and involuntary servitude without compensation during the Zion's Camp military crusade to Missouri (won on appeal).

In turn, Church leaders successfully instituted charges and recovered damages for assaults occurring while they were acting in a religious capacity. However, the financial Panic of 1837 swamped the Prophet and others with civil debt-collection litigation.

Worse still were suits for violating Ohio banking laws when the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company failed soon after it was organized in 1836 without a state charter. Charges of fraud and self-enrichment were raised but NOT PROVEN; a jury conviction was appealed, but Joseph Smith left Ohio for Missouri before it was heard.

In Missouri, most actions against the Latter-day Saints were extralegal, brought by non-Mormon vigilantes prejudiced against the Saints' opposition to slavery, their collective influx, and Smith's religious teachings concerning modern revelation and the territorial establishment of Zion in Jackson County.

*****Civil magistrates routinely refused to issue peace warrants for Mormons or to redress their personal injuries or property damage. For example, despite being beaten and tarred and feathered and having the printing office destroyed, the LDS printer was awarded less than his legal fees and the Presiding Bishop received "one penny and a peppercorn." All three branches of state government seemed paralyzed or supportive of mob action, as the Saints were repeatedly dispossessed and expelled from county to county.

Finally, election-day violence between Mormons and non-Mormons erupted at Gallatin in Daviess County, Missouri, on August 6, 1838. Joseph Smith and others called on Justice of the Peace Adam Black to obtain an "agreement of peace" from Black to support the law and not attach himself to any mob.

This resulted in Joseph Smith's and Lyman Wight's being arrested, based on an affidavit alleging riot and assault by them, while obtaining the writs from Black (HC 3:61). Smith and Wight appeared before Judge Austin King and were ordered to appear at the next hearing of the grand jury in Daviess County (HC 3:73).

On October 25, 1838, Moses Rowland, a Missouri state militiaman, was killed at the Battle of Crooked River in a clash with a company of Saints who were attempting to rescue three kidnapped brethren. Upon hearing of this engagement, coupled with other reports, Governor Lilburn W. Boggs issued his infamous Extermination Order.

Joseph and other leading Saints were arrested, and received a preliminary court hearing before Judge Austin King in Richmond, Missouri, on November 12-29, 1838. Joseph Smith and some other defendants were confined for four and a half months in Liberty Jail pending a grand jury indictment on such charges as murder, arson, theft, rebellion, and treason.

While en route to stand trial in a more impartial venue, Joseph and others were allowed to escape, thereby preventing widespread official embarrassment on the part of the state.

In 1838-1839 the Saints settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, after their wrongful expulsion from Missouri. To AVOID the "legal" persecutions suffered in earlier states, they obtained a liberal city charter for Nauvoo, which granted BROAD habeas corpus powers to local courts.

*****These HELPED to free Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Saints when they were sought on writs by arresting officers from outside of Nauvoo. In 1841 state judge Stephen A. Douglas set aside a Missouri writ to extradite Joseph for charges still pending there, and in 1843 a federal judge did the same for a similar requisition after the alleged shooting of then ex-governor Boggs. However, the increasing use of the writ of habeas corpus by Nauvoo magistrates, preempting even state and federal authority, escalated distrust among non-Mormons who felt that Joseph Smith considered himself above the law.******

The Prophet's final use of habeas corpus came after his arrest in June 1844 by a county constable for inciting a "riot" by ordering suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor. This action climaxed a series of lawsuits between the Prophet and several apostates, who had charged him with perjury and adultery; he had countercharged with perjury, assault, defamation, and resisting arrest.

After a subsequent trial on the merits and his acquittal in Nauvoo, the governor persuaded the Prophet to let himself be arrested and tried again for the "riot," this time in Carthage, where he was incarcerated without bail on a new charge of "treason" for declaring martial law and ordering out the Nauvoo militia to keep peace.

Joseph Smith's enemies charged that he was going on the offensive against citizens of Illinois. Two days later, he and his brother Hyrum were killed by a mob in disguise.

EVEN AFTER DEATH, legal trials involving the Prophet continued. Of sixty potential assassins named before a grand jury, nine were indicted and five stood trial at Carthage for the murder of Joseph (a separate trial was to follow for the murder of Hyrum).

After a six-day trial, all defendants were acquitted in June 1845 for insufficient evidence. The final legal indignity to Joseph Smith and the Church in Illinois was a series of federal court decrees in 1851 and 1852 that liquidated all remaining personal and Church assets held by Joseph Smith during his lifetime, in order to discharge an 1842 default judgment.

He had guaranteed a promissory note to the federal government in an early Nauvoo business transaction; when the note was unpaid, a succession of lawsuits followed, forestalling his efforts in bankruptcy and prompting charges of fraud and misconduct.

Although plagued by bad advice and misfortune in business matters, THE PROPHET WAS NEVER FOUND GUILTY OF ANY MISCONDUCT.

Huff:

Weird. I cannot use the link from my work computer, but can from home. Must be our firewall. You will hear from me soon.

Henry, that is funny. I had a similar reaction.

I know a guy that was in a meeting with executives of his company. They were discussing the dismissal of another officer that had an affair with his secretary. The Chairman said, "anyone that would cheat on his wife, would also steal from the company." To which, another officer responded, "hey, I have never stolen from the company."

Phaedrus:

My name is a link. Just click on my name at the top of this post.

My Dear Miss RTC

Your gallant defense of Mssr Smith against the charges of one Mr DV reminds me of the cocktail party I attended in London, where a man said

"Mr Oscar Wilde is an old liar, fraud, embezzler, adulterer, and is crazy to boot"

and I jumped to his defense immediately by saying

"He is NOT old."

DV -

You choose to stand as a witness against the prophet Joseph Smith, of whose works you claim active membership? You actually believe that any active member that you would disclose your actual identity to would consider you NOT apostate taking this position? You are walking in the dark in mid-DAY.

I cannot stand-by and not refute what you have said about the prophet, so I will begin at Carthage with what is actually the TRUTH.

by W. John Walsh

The Statement Was Made and Response Given:

Joseph Smith was NOT a martyr, not by any stretch of the imagination. He died in a gun battle fighting desperately trying to save his life.The dictionary defines a martyr as "A person who VOLUNTARILY SUFFERS DEATH as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion." (Webster, Tenth ed.) He was a man ruthlessly murdered who died in a blazing gun battle trying desperately to save his life. Real martyrs like the ancient Christians went willingly to death.

Response by John Walsh:

If you reexamine your dictionary, you will find that you skipped over parts of the definition of martyr and definitions of related words. Webster's also states that to martyr is "to put to death for adhering to a belief, faith, or profession." (Webster, Tenth ed.)

In addition, Random House Webster's College dictionary (1991) states that a martyr is:

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.; 2. A person who is put to death or suffers on behalf of a cause.; 3. A person who undergoes severe or constant suffering.

There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was finally murdered, after suffering severe and constant afflictions, because he would not renounce his religious beliefs or prophetic claims. (See The Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith) Therefore, there can be no doubt that he was a martyr.

Elder B.H. Roberts made these comments about this event:

"It was self-surrender that Joseph Smith made to certain death. He was clean escaped out of the hands of his enemies. He had crossed the Mississippi from Nauvoo and was surrounded by trusted men who were aiding his departure for the west.

One more day would have seen him at the head of a small company of men in the wilderness of Iowa en route for the Rocky Mountains. Then came the pleading of some mistaken and some false friends that he submit to the demands of Governor Ford and trust to his promises of protection, and not play the part of the false shepherd who leaves the flock when attacked by wolves.

This was more than Joseph's spirit could endure, and hence he recrossed the river, against his better judgment, and with absolute conviction that he would be killed, went to Carthage and among a host of publicly and repeatedly avowed enemies, pledged to encompass his death, surrendered to the requirements of the officers of the law.

At Nauvoo, eighteen miles away, he had left a body of between three and four thousand men, the best body of militia in the state of Illinois, with arms and other equipments for war. And yet the Smith brothers voluntarily placed themselves in the hands of the officers. No self-surrender, with every means for successful resistance, could have been more complete; and in fulfillment of the requirements of the governor, the Brothers Smith went to Carthage unarmed.

The matter of their having one six-barrelled and one single-barrelled pistol with them when assailed was because friends on parting from them left these fire arms with them as stated in a former chapter, under circumstances alike honorable and justifiable. These arms offered but a meager defense against the overwhelming odds of the assailants; nor did the Prophet use the pistol left with him until he had seen his brother shot to death from his side--not until he had looked into the dead face of that brother, calm but bullet-torn, did the war spirit native to his race--his revolutionary ancestry--rise within him and impel him to the conflict at the door where muskets were belching fire and death, where he stood for one splendid moment as some avenging spirit returning the fire of the mob.

Much less or far more than mortal man must he have been not to have done what he did. And what he did in that supreme moment of trial and death, does not depreciate him in the esteem of Christian men, nor make him less a martyr to the mission given him of God.

President McKinley's and Roosevelt's United States secretary of state, John Hay, was right when he said Joseph Smith put up a "handsome fight" in the prison; but it in no way detracts from the solemn fact of his martyrdom, and emphasizes the glory of his manhood." (Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.59, p.316 - p.317)

You seem to imply that there is something wrong or immoral about defending either yourself or others from unlawful attacks. When the mob of 150-200 persons attacked the room in which he and his associates were staying, Joseph managed to fire just three shots at the mob before he was killed.

The entire event only lasted a few minutes. You describe the encounter as a "blazing gun battle." One man, armed only with a small revolver and defending himself against 200 armed foes, does not describe a "blazing gun battle." It describes a slaughter.

Also, you seem to believe that the early Christians martyrs all died willingly without any resistance. Somehow I suspect that they did not step willingly into the mouths of lions. When they were alone with the lions in the arena, I imagine that they tried to run, hide, or even fight back.

Their resistence did not disqualify them from being martyrs. Furthermore, your question reminded me of an episode in the life of Paul the Apostle. When Paul faced a similar mob who had decided "it is not fit that he should live." (Acts 22:22), he used his Roman citizenship for protection instead of meekly submitting to scourging and death (Acts 22:25). Are you claiming that the Apostle Paul was not a true Christian martyr?

Huff:

happy to, but I cannot find your blog. What is the url?

Phaedrus,

One of the reasons I wanted to talk with you, is because I am in clinical psychology. I'd like to talk with you more about the psychology of belief systems. So, email me if you would like.

What a fair-minded Pachyderm you are, Mayan.

I guess then we have to credit this particular Shell Game/thought control tactic to the PR man Matthew.

The tactic is important to point out, however. I don't think I have seen a thorough analysis of either the

Psychological Manipulation tactics of Organized Religions,
or

The Deniability/Non-Falsifiability tactics of same (how can you disprove that Jesus is coming "soon", or that God is so all-knowing that we just can't understand his mysterious ways).

Have any of you seen any systematic studies.?

My brother William wrote the best book ever written about religion, but I don't think he tackled these subjects. I will ask him tonite.

Damn Brother of Jesse,

dont make me come on here and stick up for otterson. after the guy rejected my offer to have hot chocolate together, i dont really like defending the guy.

you said - "The VERY TITLE of this thread from Otterson, "NOT Even the Angels Know," is a blatant thought control tactic (how surprising that a PR man would stoop so low!)"

you may have missed this in previous discussions, BUT LET IT BE KNOWN AMONG ALL NATIONS OF THE EARTH, LET EVERY TONGUE CONFESS, YADA YADA - OTTERSON DOES NOT CREATE HIS OWN TITLES, AND HE DOES NOT CHANGE THE TITLES AFTER HE POSTS. That is done by the hosts.

Phaedrus: you write

"ps: I liked your brother as well. Give him my best."

William, or Jesse?

Mr. James:

Let me say that I loved "The Turn of the Screw." The way that you concealed who the actual threat to the children was is simply brilliant. And, it goes to show that the narrator of any story holds the trump card most of the time. Even if you are posing as merely a ghostwriter for "the"divine author.

ps: I liked your brother as well. Give him my best.

Patriarchal Blessings, Psychological Manipulation, and Thought Control

Isn't it amazing that people can go for 150 years and not identify the scam Phaedrus illuminates in talking about Pat Blgs?!!???

The VERY TITLE of this thread from Otterson, "NOT Even the Angels Know," is a blatant thought control tactic (how surprising that a PR man would stoop so low!)

"Keep your boots shined, cuz at any moment the General might pop in for a surprise inspection."

RTC wonders why mature adults might be a little upset at these lies and manipulations by their trusted leaders. Hit me again, she metaphorically says. I deserve it.

At least when I write something, I label it as fiction.

Malkie:

Good point. However, if you read an earlier post you will see that, because the ultimate truthfulness" of the PB depends upon the continued righteousness of the recipient, that recipient is then responsible for any error the "blesser" makes." I know, neat trick right?

This is precisely akin to the practices of "mediums," who typically blame any failure to "receive" accurate info from their "deceased informants" on some characteristic of the audience, such as lack of belief or some other mental/spiritual "interference."

But, the real beauty here is that this sets up a "self-fulfilling prophecy." By making the (mostly) good things to come, contingent on the continued faithfulness of the recipient, the recipient is more likely to behave in ways defined as "faithful." This serves the greater needs of the church, which I think is the real aim.

And, of course, this goes along with the confirmation bias, whereby such recipients focus more on the "hits" of the predictions (what seems accurate) than they do the "misses." Recipients will also typically stretch the more nebulous predictions; e.g. "You will conceive 3 children." The recipient, having been pregnant only twice, will then typically say something like, "Well, I must have spontaneously aborted one fetus without having known about it."

It really is an ingenius mechanism when you think about it.

Henry James said:

"Patriarchal Blessings

Are they supposed to be infallible prophecies, or "inspired prayers"? or What?

I suppose it would be tacky for someone to give a Pat. Blssing that says the recipient will be alive at the Second Coming, and then when it is done to issue a disclaimer that there is only a 50/50 chance that the blessing is correct.

I guess I always assumed that PBs were given in good faith but were, informally at least, not held to the same truth standard of undeniable accuracy as Joseph Smith's account of the first vision, for instance."

If that is the case, then what exactly is supposed to be the value of a PB? How strict must the "truth standard" be for it to be valuable?

Phaedrus: No wonder you Greeks built such a great civilization (let's just not talk about how you treated your women). Or are you the Roman Phaedrus?

In any case, your ruminations about how people adjust their beliefs in the face of contradictory information touch on a topic that much interests me.

Cognitive neuroscience has illuminated many of our human Moral Reasoning processes, as well as our belief mechanisms.

A simplified example is that
My Amygdala (seat of emotions) is attached to the Myth of Joseph Smith cuz mommy taught it to me since i was a baby
and
my Prefrontal Cortex (reasoing sector) notes that the outlandish and contradictory elements of the Smith story are both lies and absurd.

Now I have a conflict. Who do I believe, my mother or my own eyes?

If my Amygdala and my Cortex don't have a good working relationship, I may continue to believe my mommy on my "mythos" topics,
while deciding which stocks to buy using my Logos/Cortex regions.

How many smart Mormons, like my brother (and me for years) continue to believe the crazy stories in Church doctrine has baffled me for a long time. But the above example probably is part of the puzzle.

The other part is: humans are EXTRAORDINARILY good at rationizing and justifying their behavior and beliefs. Just look at the Bush administration's justifications of torture.

Betty and DV:

I appreciate both of your comments. I am doing some thinking about how beliefs actually change, and maybe more importantly, why they don't, and these threads are quite instructive. It seems that there are some people (most actually) who have two separate "tracks" for reality checking, moving along simultaneously. One track is simple fact checking oriented, as in " what is the nature of X based on the available info?" The other "track" involves incorporating such info into our belief system. (Piaget used concepts like "schema" and "accomodation" and it may be that this is the best way to describe this in the end.) For many, the belief track (mythos) at least loosely parallels the fact-checking track (logos). Thus we see some believers incorporate evolution into their mythos, or the heliocentric model, or true racial equality, as quick illustrations.

The point of this is that there are other people who appear to have inseperably merged tracks, such that the belief system itself determines what facts get checked, and/or what the outcome of the checking will be. We might call such people "mythos fundamentalists," because the mythos dictates the logos (to loosely use the Greek terms for the sum of mythological knowledge and that of an empirically derived nature, respectively.)

The result of this is that the "truth" will be what the holy texts state, or what the "leadership" conveys. It is then impossible to appeal to the "logos track" because it no longer exists as an insubordinate entity. Continued efforts to talk logos to these mythos-fundies results in the concave wall that Mayan Elephant described in a previous thread (from pounding his head against it).

It is far too premature to go further with this, but your posts brought it to mind and I decided to get this piece out there.

DV, I am particularly struck by your post, and appreciate your sharing it with us.

Everyone-

I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in front of you and share my viewpoints. I would like to make special reference to Brother Mayan Elephant's comment above:

"About Joseph Smith, I happen to agree with you that he is complex and interesting. I have said a lot of rotten things about the guy. I have said a lot of good things about the guy. He was very successful. He died in a gunfight where he killed two men. He should not have been murdered as he was. I will not defend those that killed him. But, its not reasonable to say he was innocent or wrongfully jailed. He messed with the rap, so to speak. He smashed up the presses. He conned men so he could marry their wives. He married young girls. He had himself ordained as King of the World (in a country that just fought off that whole King thing.) He had bank scandals. He cheated his own apostles. He lied to them about his Polygamy and put their integrity in jeopardy. Again, he didn’t deserve a bullet for all that, but he got one. Just as a person doesn’t deserve to be mauled by a bear, but that may be one’s fate after hanging fresh salmon around one’s neck and poking a sleeping Grizzly Bear with a stick."

First, I would like to say that I am an active member of the church. I hold a calling in my ward and try to participate to the best of my ability. As opposed to what many have told me online, I am not an apostate, but have learned many things recently about my religion. Mayan's condensed version of Joseph's infractions seems to be typical apostate lies, that we were taught, have been dreamed up by apostates to discredit the truthfulness of the gospel. Unfortunately, my many months of study, reading good books sold at Deseret Book such as Rough Stone Rolling, In Sacred Loneliness, and Emma Smith:Mormon Enigma, have proved to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all of the things Brother Mayan has said are true.

Joseph was not the wonderful example of purity, compassion, and integrity that we have been taught he was. I hate to say this but, to a very large degree, we have been deceived regarding the true character of the founder of our religion. He did kill two men in the gunfight that was the martyrdom. He did destroy the Nauvoo Expositor that William Law and others had set up to warn newly converted women about Joseph's sexual conquests, and being elected King of the World by the Counsel of Fifty. He did create a bank scandal with the Kirtland Safety Society "Anti-Bank" that lost over $100,000 in people's savings. This caused over twenty lawsuits against him, and most of the people recovered nothing. He did lie to his apostles about his polygamy, marrying at least thirty women during his lifetime, while telling the church membership he had only one wife. And he didn't deserve a bullet for it, being condemned without a trial in a country that prides itself on truth and justice. Those are the facts as portrayed by many LDS historians.

Mayan Elephant should be commended for bringing these truths to light. I know they are unfortunately troubling and painful truths. But, ALL truth is very useful to the enlightened. Some truths, though seemingly not very useful, are very useful at painting a full, complete, and accurate picture of things. These seemingly "unimportant" truths, when understood and digested, can enlighten our minds and hearts beyond measure. As Christ said, "The truth shall make you free. . ."

RTC You ARE a strong woman, defending the Church against the onslaught of Elephants and Greek Mythological Figures.

You remind me of my Mormon Pioneer Women Ancestors.

As a woman, I must agree with one point of Mayan's:
you are responding exactly as Mormon men train their Mormon women to respond.

One other point:
when I discuss theology, Catholic or Mormon, with my friend who used to be the Catholic Chaplain at Harvard, he actually engages in reasoning in discussing Catholic positions (which he does not accept un-critically, by the way).

For instance, he would be troubled by the patent logical contradiction of believing that the Pope is Infallible when speaking for the Church when the Pope has been demonstrably fallible when speaking for the Church.

you, on the other hand, are able to avoid any cognitive dissonance when confronted with the most basis logical contradictions in Smith prophecies from an infallible God. I am impressed by that. I can't say I admire it. In fact, it mystifies the heck out of me.

Point: my Catholic Friend believes that human intelligence and reasoning should be applied to religious matters (not discounting the place of Faith)
and you seem to think it has no place.

luv
Aunt Betty

Mayan:

VERY VERY well-said! You have proven yourself a more than capable opponent of this sort of willful ignorance.

Thanks RTC.

Though, this - "I am sorry that you have not ever experienced for yourself the power of the Holy Ghost which enables you to testify with a sure knowledge as such." - snuck up on me. I cannot believe I missed the chance to prophecy that you would say that. Of course I dont have the "Spirit" or the capacity to recognize the "Spirit." Only Mormons who believe all they are told have that, right?

RTC, if someone were to graffiti your house, key your car, shave the New York Yankees logo onto your poodle's butt, bury used motor oil in your sandbox and leave 78 fish heads, 346 crawfish heads and a pot of rotten cabbage on your doorstep, it would be fine to say, "Hey, this is offensive." You may wish to reward the person who did it, you may not. You may choose to forgive them, you may not. But, there really is nothing wrong with the conclusion that each of those events are offensive. Also, there is nothing really valiant in finding those events non-offensive. You dont get a special star for saying to your Bishop that you were not offended by oilheadyankeefanvandalizers. Really. You dont get a star for that.

It is interesting that your response was all about a person being offensive, or as you put it, "someone in this Church will do or say something that could be considered offensive." Well duh. What about when the entire institution does something offensive? The presumption that only people make mistakes, as the church (read leaders) are perfect in their actions and in their prophecies, is, well, its Mormon. Thats what it is, its Mormon. Its not even offensive, just Mormonish.

RTC, you also said this, "If a person says or does something that we consider offensive, our first obligation is to refuse to take offense and then communicate privately, honestly, and directly with that individual. Such an approach invites inspiration from the Holy Ghost and permits misperceptions to be clarified and true intent to be understood."

You really need to get back on that spaceship and return from Kolob, cuz you obviously arent here with the rest of us. Take for example Oaks and Packer, as we discussed in other threads. They have said some offensive rotten crap. For example, Packer said that funerals should not be about the deceased and they should be used for testimonies like yours. That instruction may be offensive to some people, including me. So, how should I resolve that according to what you just said? Well, the first thing, is to NOT contact Packer. Mormons are told very specifically to NOT contact the general leaders. Hey, I know this is a little picky little thing. I dont expect the fifteen apostles to be answering questions on a blog. But, my point is that when they and their institution are offensive, which they are, it cant just be resolved in a little quiet moment of Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya. There aint no resolving stuff with those dudes, because they are prophets, and they dont make mistakes. And if they do, its not their fault if other people are offended. Nonsense.

When is the Gathering of the Ten Tribes in Missouri going to happen, RTC?

RTC,

No doubt you were born into a Mormon family. I recommend that you expand your horizons by reading what has been said about the historical Jesus in the last 200 years.

An excellent place to begin is at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html which is listing of contemporary historic Jesus scholars and their books. Many of these scholars are members of the On Faith panel.

How they categorize the historical Jesus is listed below:

Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

Mayan -

I am sorry for the way in which you took my previous post, for that is not how I intended it to be taken. My apologies to you for I have obviously offended you greatly.

I feel your rebuttal is quite cruel, unjust and meant to be destructive.

My testimony and how I give it is mine, given my way only. I am sorry that you have not ever experienced for yourself the power of the Holy Ghost which enables you to testify with a sure knowledge as such.

I do not say this to be condescending, only to say to you that I personally own my own testimony of Joseph Smith and that which he brought forth.

President Hinckley knows of himself that this testimony that he speaks of is powerful and of such validity that one who does acquire it, is bound to it. It is obvious you do not and will not even try to understand or at best respect this in others.

Again, I am so very sorry that your feelings run so opposite on this, that you feel you must say such things as you have.

I remember the talk of Elder Bednar's that you referred to, so I went and re-read it. This portion of it, in particular stood out to me...

"The capacity to conquer offense may seem beyond our reach. This capability, however, is not reserved for or restricted to prominent leaders in the Church like Brigham Young. The very nature of the Redeemer's Atonement and the purpose of the restored Church are intended to help us receive precisely this kind of spiritual strength.

Paul taught the Saints in Ephesus that the Savior established His Church "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12–13).

Please note the use of the active word perfecting. As described by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, the Church is not "a well-provisioned rest home for the already perfected" ("A Brother Offended," Ensign, May 1982, 38). Rather, the Church is a learning laboratory and a workshop in which we gain experience as we practice on each other in the ongoing process of "perfecting the Saints."

Elder Maxwell also insightfully explained that in this latter-day learning laboratory known as the restored Church, the members constitute the "clinical material" (see "Jesus, the Perfect Mentor," Ensign, Feb. 2001, 13) that is essential for growth and development.

A visiting teacher learns her duty as she serves and loves her Relief Society sisters. An inexperienced teacher learns valuable lessons as he teaches both supportive and inattentive learners and thereby becomes a more effective teacher.

And a new bishop learns how to be a bishop through inspiration and by working with ward members who wholeheartedly sustain him, even while recognizing his human frailties.

Understanding that the Church is a learning laboratory helps us to prepare for an inevitable reality. In some way and at some time, someone in this Church will do or say something that could be considered offensive. Such an event will surely happen to each and every one of us—and it certainly will occur more than once.

Though people may not intend to injure or offend us, they nonetheless can be inconsiderate and tactless.

You and I cannot control the intentions or behavior of other people. However, we do determine how we will act.

Please remember that you and I are agents endowed with moral agency, and we can choose not to be offended...

One of the greatest indicators of our own spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to the weaknesses, the inexperience, and the potentially offensive actions of others.

A thing, an event, or an expression may be offensive, but you and I can choose not to be offended...

I invite you to learn about and apply the Savior's teachings about interactions and episodes that can be construed as offensive.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. . . . 

"For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

"And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:43–44, 46–48).

Interestingly, the admonition to "be ye therefore perfect" is immediately preceded by counsel about how we should act in response to wrongdoing and offense. Clearly, the rigorous requirements that lead to the perfecting of the Saints include assignments that test and challenge us.

If a person says or does something that we consider offensive, our first obligation is to refuse to take offense and then communicate privately, honestly, and directly with that individual. Such an approach invites inspiration from the Holy Ghost and permits misperceptions to be clarified and true intent to be understood."

RTC:

Get real.

You said: “Those individuals that leave the church for individual reasons of "doctrinal" differences do not have a claim for the victimization of self, let alone an entire group of people who are clearly benefited by the whole.”

Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of this line. You bring this up frequently, and its complete horesecrap. It is as reasonable as saying, “I have never been hurt by a drunk driver, so I am not qualified to complain about drunk drivers.” Or, “Unless you have been killed by a drunk driver, you cannot claim speak out against drunk driving.”

Your argument is stupid at best. I suggest it is both stupid and harmful. It is a line you have been fed by your leaders that you shamelessly repeat on this site. It is completely in line with Bednar’s suggestion that all apostates/heretics CHOSE to be offended. What a clown. They CHOSE to be offended? As if the church never ever no never not ever not even once nope not ever did anything offensive?

The fact that there are good people in the church, and the fact that the church has done good things, does not wipe away the awful stuff that has happened. You live in a bubble RTC. It is believed in the Mormon Church that the church is perfect, even if the people are not. Or, even if the leaders are not. That is just silliness. As if the church is independent of people. Do you really think that the church makes its own decisions, without human interference?

You “believe very few people would look at what the Mormon Church in general does for the good of humanity, as well as it's members and see it as a system to be taken down or abolished by society at large.” Well no kidding. You see RTC, not even those evil apostates that you know everything about are looking to abolish the joint. Your statement is, again, preposterous and says nothing. Try this one out on the next thread, “I believe very few people would look at the nice things that Boyd Packer said and consider him a felon that should be stoned to death by average citizens.” Your argument is insane. In freaking sane.

Your testimony about Joseph Smith is very predictable. Its rote material for Mormons. The same stuff will be said many many many times at your conference this weekend. And more, you MUST say it. To not say it is to admit that the whole thing is a fraud, according to your Priesthood Leader. You are trapped. You have no middle ground. It is ALL or nothing. So, we expect you to say what you say about Joseph Smith, despite his failures and the harmfulness of his successors.

From Hinckley, President of Otterson’s and RTC’s church: "Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS General Conference, Spring 2003

Unfortunately, Hinckley kicked the chair out from underneath you. There is, according to your leader, no middle ground. There is no room for discussion, dissent, or debate. So, your little “know”imony is reduced in some venues, not all, but some venues to nothing but a memorized chant.

About Joseph Smith, I happen to agree with you that he is complex and interesting. I have said a lot of rotten things about the guy. I have said a lot of good things about the guy. He was very successful. He died in a gunfight where he killed two men. He should not have been murdered as he was. I will not defend those that killed him. But, its not reasonable to say he was innocent or wrongfully jailed. He messed with the rap, so to speak. He smashed up the presses. He conned men so he could marry their wives. He married young girls. He had himself ordained as King of the World (in a country that just fought off that whole King thing.) He had bank scandals. He cheated his own apostles. He lied to them about his Polygamy and put their integrity in jeopardy. Again, he didn’t deserve a bullet for all that, but he got one. Just as a person doesn’t deserve to be mauled by a bear, but that may be one’s fate after hanging fresh salmon around one’s neck and poking a sleeping Grizzly Bear with a stick.

You said, “To say that a prophet of God got something wrong is to simply not understand how prophecy is given, or how it is fulfilled.”

Are you kidding me? A prophet never got anything wrong? Let me guess, those things that were wrong were said as a man, not as a prophet. How original. More of that perfection status for your leaders, unless its inconvenient, then they were/are imperfect. Good Lardy.

So, you know all about Joseph Smith. You lucky person. Society is not going to crush the Church if you are right. Nor will society crush the Mormon church if you are wrong. You are free to worship as you see fit, according to the dictates of your own conscience. Stop pretending that there is a conspiracy within society to do you or your church harm. There is some momentum to stop the church from continuing to do harm to others. That is true. Even that is more related to the Church reaching beyond its own walls with its little agenda, not the act of governments or individuals coming into the church.

About the Book of Mormon. Easy now. It does say in there that God cursed people with dark skin for being wicked. You may want to jot that down as a fiction part, not factual. And the part about the [Mayan] Elephants living in America a few thousand years ago, you might want to put that in the fiction part as well.

One thing I happen to like about you RTC, is that you say what the Mormons are told to say. You are on here without shame saying stuff that is, quite frankly, bizarre to people outside Mormonism. I respect that. While there is not a stereotypical Mormon, in my opinion you represent a good chunk of members that believe just as you do regarding the history, doctrine and counsel of Hinckley and the other fourteen apostles. I like that about you. You are staying with it until Jesus comes to Jackson County Missouri and rescues the United States Constitution as it hangs by a thread. Then, Jesus will run the government for a thousand years and you will be right there. Any day now, it will be run by Mormons, right? And you are bold to say so.

Those who have received the works which Joseph Smith restored through revelation by the power and gift of god which he claimed and have applied it as given are evidence of it's fruit.

For those of you in the field of science, what better proof can ye have than this? Testimony upon testimony of those that apply the same pattern over and over again and again will and do bear witness of the reality that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of a living god and that there is on the earth today a living prophet in Gordon B. Hinckley.

These same individuals also can, will and do bear testimony of themselves that the Book of Mormon IS the word of God, because they have read it and prayed about it with sincere desire to know for themselves, thus the Spirit has testified to their souls in ways undeniable that it is true, therefore they must proclaim that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God!

The Book of Mormon is not some strange book of fictional writings. It is "another" witness of Jesus Christ, which adds to the records given in the Bible and strengthens the testimony that He lives!

Those who believe in Christ will love the Book of Mormon, in that they will find others who waited upon His birth and that He appeared to after His resurrection.

For those who believe in Christ, what could be more wonderful than a record which gives personal witnesses and added testimony of the Savior of the World?

No matter what evidence you hold up against Joseph Smith, the Holy Spirit who YOU deny EXIST, has born witness to millions of individuals with such POWER that WE will NOT and CANNOT deny him, who the Savior called His friend.

Do you not want such an experience of knowing for yourself IF such knowledge is to be found? It is the most wonderful source of peace and strength to be found amidst the confusions had in this world of so much uncertainty.

To know that there IS a God who IS the Creator of All things and that He has a plan for everyone of His sons and daughters and all that is happening in this life has meaning and purpose -- that this did NOT just happen without a magnificent amount of love for each one of us...

"... and the prophecies and promises which are in them SHALL all be fulfilled..."

To say that a prophet of God got something wrong is to simply not understand how prophecy is given, or how it is fulfilled.

Now Bollocks:

It is just crazy for someone to believe, after praying about it and getting an assured feeling, that just because someone like Koresh declares himself a prophet, and many believe him, and that he seemed sincere, that he was really giving us the word of God.

Can't you see how different the case of Joseph Smith is from the case of Koresh?

Joseph Smith was REALLY speaking to God, except I guess in those prophecies that he got wrong.

I know that David Karesh was a prophet because he could've run away from the compound in Texas, but he did not because he was sincere and knew that he was a prophet. Any one who says other wise is just one of the tares, and most of the wheat burned up in the fire with David K.

The majority of religious believers owe their faith to an accident of birth. As per John Hick, a noted British philosopher, almost 95% of people of the world fit this category e.g. Mormons are Mormons because they were born Mormons.

Bottom line: Various religious beliefs in the end-of-the-world scenarios are a result of an accident of birth. Those that are in this category should pause and consider this situation and consider if their beliefs are "believable" from basic common sense and reality.

As noted before, what we do know is that life as we know it will end sometime between now and 3-4 billion CE with the Sun going non-nuclear, an impact with an asteroid or by a nuclear war.

I mentioned the parable of the wheat and the tares earlier and that we could easily observe this taking place currently, as these are the last days in preparation for the second coming.

In regards to those that leave the mormon church and cannot leave it alone, I believe they are of a select group of which I made earlier comments and to which we see much evidence of in the On Faith threads quite consistently.

Of those to which Phaedrus mentions, I see absolutely no comparison whatsoever. These crusaders that are mentioned would most likely be joined by any one of us here in similar situations, at the least we would stand by them in support.

I believe very few people would look at what the Mormon Church in general does for the good of humanity, as well as it's members and see it as a system to be taken down or abolished by society at large.

In fact, just the opposite, I feel that the lds church is seen in general as good. I believe that most people who have contact with members of the lds church have general positive experiences and are aware of the good values and service that the church promotes in it's members regardless of the doctrines they teach and personally believe.

Those individuals that leave the church for individual reasons of "doctrinal" differences do not have a claim for the victimization of self, let alone an entire group of people who are clearly benefited by the whole.

Not a good comparison.

Many people in the world believe things that we do not agree with or that we do not think are true. Do we then make it our life's work to then vigorously inform them of their error? What would drive us to do so unless we honestly felt they were in danger of some kind? As those mentioned... drug abuse, drunk drivers, etc... Not religious doctrine?

The only motivation that would drive this type of crusade must therefore come from a place more deeply embedded than most understand. For the apostate of religious belief, as mentioned before, it is a matter of identity. The need to survive. To validate their new life choices and to sell the self is to sell others.

IF content and at peace, they would progress into new life and be able to move forward, taking with them what they have learned...

It is nothing like the group Phaedrus mentions, who's motives are from a true heart, and which seeks to help others and brings that which gives...

Gifts are received by those with open arms who are ready and willing to receive them, happily:-)

know:
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information
have knowledge or information concerning

This would be the definition I am using when I use the words "I know".

I know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God. I know that the doctrines are true that he has restored through revelation by the gift and power of god. I am assured that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is His Church that bears His name and administers by Priesthood authority all of the required saving ordinances that we may return to our Father in Heaven.

I am completely aware of the many discrepancies that have been presented numerous times here and in numerous other places that would discredit him as a prophet IF that is how I chose to determine the validity of his works. But it is not. I would recommend to others to not fall for that mistake. For that is what it is, a mistake.

I would suggest judging Joseph Smith on the merits of what he actually did, with a sincere desire to know IF it is truth?

As I have stated before, for myself, the truth of his works are undeniably truth. There is no possible way that an uninspired con-man came up with the doctrines that Joseph Smith revealed and taught in such magnificence. One can study deeply every day of ones life and continue to marvel at the complexities, layers, mysteries, enlightenment, etc., which then form a seamlessness that continually unfolds into a rich historical and beautiful understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ with the atonement as the central theme.

As much as I love Joseph Smith for all that he did and for giving his life for his testimony of the work he was called to do, I do not credit him as much as many others do with so much genius in concocting such a brilliant scheme.

IF Joseph were a con-man as so many accuse him of -- that he and Hyrum would NOT have just kept going when they had the chance to RUN, should cause one to think? WHY did he return when he KNEW HIS FATE? For this is on record, not in dispute. BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS CALLED TO DO AND HE WAS WILLING TO DO IT. Clearly, Joseph's motives were not selfish, nor his brother Hyrum's.

All prophecy will be fulfilled. "...and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my words shall NOT pass away, but shall ALL be fulfilled..."

Patriarchal blessings are considered personal scripture to the individual and will be fulfilled, conditional upon an individuals faithfulness and in the due time of the Lord as stated above. All blessings are conditional upon righteousness and at times have been withheld until a people were or are prepared to receive, etc...

Patriarchal Blessings

Are they supposed to be infallible prophecies, or "inspired prayers"? or What?

I suppose it would be tacky for someone to give a Pat. Blssing that says the recipient will be alive at the Second Coming, and then when it is done to issue a disclaimer that there is only a 50/50 chance that the blessing is correct.

I guess I always assumed that PBs were given in good faith but were, informally at least, not held to the same truth standard of undeniable accuracy as Joseph Smith's account of the first vision, for instance.

Important Philosophy: An Addendum

When giving an example of when it can be "important" to evaluate "knowledge"
in a strict Philosophical manner
as opposed to using "I know" in the colloquial manner,

I meant to use an example like

"i, Mohammed Atta, KNOW that Allah will reward me in heaven with 70 Virgin Mary type beings
if I fly this plane into this building"

The Virgin Mary example is clearly a relatively trivial example (though adoration of the Virgin has fueled many a religious war)

My Dear Friend RTC

Let me first re-iterate that I think you are a kind and loving person. I think, like many of us, that sometimes your words get in the way of others seeing that completely, but I truly believe your intentions are good. You want to save us.

As far as "KNOWING" goes,
it is clear that you are using KNOW in the colloquial Mormon way,
and I am using KNOW in a stricter philosophical sense.

Not that I believe the Philosophical SEnse is irrelevent to real life.

Most importantly, I think a true believing Catholic who 'Knows" that Mary had an immaculate conception
can NOT "really" know that.
Though they can certainly believe it strongly, as you believe iin Mormon teachings strongly.

I am perfectly happy to have you believe what you believe.

And if we interpret Mormons who say "The Church is True" to mean
"it works for me"
and "I like it better every year,"

Then we are in agreement.

We should just realize that when the
Muslim/Catholic/Mormon/Baptist
says
"My Church is true"
what they are really saying is
"It works for me"

There is no God but Allah, and Allah has no gender.

luv from your Aunt Betty

Oh, and one more item: I wonder how many Patriarchal blessings have promised that the recipient would be alive for the second coming, only to be followed by the funeral of that same recipient?

Perhaps some would care to comment?

HAving just returned from the weekend, and before I go on the road again, I had a quick thought. I have been hearing the statment: "You can leave the church, but you can never leave it alone," thrown around here, or similar sentiments. I had not heard this before, as my drift from Mormonism was more of a clean break before I started visiting this thread. I do not have the knowledge of Mormon dogma that most of you have here for this reason. Had my siblings not also left the church, I might have continued to study its many falsehoods in an effort to help them break away as well. Happily, this was not required.

But, it is not unusual for people to to use their time and knowledge of something they feel ill-served or victimized by, to try to prevent others from experiencing similar phenomena. As a few examples: Slaves freed on the "underground railroad" often spent their next several years helping other slaves to freedom; two mothers whose children were killed by drunk drivers started MADD, East Germans who were able to escape to the west then turned around and helped others do likewise; same with Miami's Cuban population, etc. Even groups like AA employ the same principle. So, those who like to see the ex-Mormons' activities in opposition to the church as representing something "special" about Mormonism? Not so much, really. Unless you want to also say that those with much first-hand knowledge of the ravages of substance abuse, who then attend AA or NA regularly, are indicative of something "special" about addiction.

Keep it up gang, this was interesting. And to James and Betty, looks like common sense, inteligence, and decency may have a genetic link, indeed.

Betty -

There is an old saying that goes like this -- "If the shoe fits, wear it".

I am sure you have heard it. And so it goes with that which I have said, thus my reasons for not making any personal accusations.

Those that choose for themselves to put their names to any action that fits their behavior on this or other threads do so at their own self-accusation.

I have honestly given my opinion to what I see as the truth that motivates the actions by individuals that have become disaffected from the mormon church and now vehemently oppose that which they once claim they believed to be true.

You stated that I cannot know that you are Betty? I know that you are the Betty that I know at the On Faith blog. That is all I need to know about you. It is not necessary that I even trust what you tell me because your name is Betty. I trust what the Betty at On Faith tells me about Betty because I am fine with what you say in that it is what you believe and that what I know, is what I know.

What you believe and say you know, although it may counter to my knowledge, is neither here nor there because of my sure knowledge.

So Betty is a nice person that I have come to admire for her genuine kindness and ability to communicate without rancor and accept others that do not believe what she knows for herself. She is also someone who I have felt an honest connection with as well and I have chosen to accept that as the spirit telling me that this person is true.

I love that about YOU. Who ever you really are? lol But to me you are Betty! and always will be:-)

Note:

In regards to Joseph Smith and his prophecies... I could spend much time going in circles with many here. This I choose not to do as I testify to you that he is a prophet of God.

When the Lord states that "though the heavens and the earth pass away, BUT my word shall NOT pass away but shall ALL be fulfilled" it is until then, that I will wait upon the Lord to fulfill all of His promises, which again, he says that he will!

FAITH, Betty and to all who doubt is that ONE thing that cannot be known, and THAT is what leads men and women unto Christ.

Without faith, they become gods unto themselves.

One more thought? Is it not interesting that God would choose a young boy with the gift of faith who believed in things such as Joseph did, such as prayer, visions, dreams, treasure digging, etc... for who could have had faith great enough to have actually seen what this young boy saw in that grove, IF his faith had not allowed such a vision?

And yet because of this great gift so fully developed in his youth, at a time of folly and much weakness, time was needed to grow up a very youthful prophet to the Lord. But still considered an unlearned boy to those who knew him.

So I trust the Lord took the greatness of Joseph while yet the young boy for he had a work for him to do that required the faith that could come to KNOW, as surely he did. Know the truth that would change everything.

Joseph Smith truly was the prophet of the restoration for great was that truth which he has revealed and for which we are the great beneficiaries of today.

It really does not take much at all to know IF Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. For all of the BoA discredits that can be piled up against Joseph, or prophecies yet unfulfilled, edits to the Book of Mormon, questions unanswered regarding polygamy, etc... for the list goes on and on and on and will continue to do so. It is said that members of the church choose to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to these things. Granted, some may not be aware of every detail, but it is because they have heard enough of them.

The balance on the scale is just so in favor of the glorious truths that he restored and that the spirit so powerfully testifies to, that his prophetic calling cannot be denied. Members understand the principle of God's ways in making weak things become strong, as well as how that which is weak will confound the wise.

The way to know IF Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and IF The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is in fact administering His gospel and saving ordinances through the priesthood of god by His authority is to prayerfully and sincerely study the doctrines that he revealed and taught. Beginning with the Book of Mormon and moving on to the Doctrine and Covenants.

My testimony is that the more one prayerfully studies and lives accordingly, the more true the gospel of Jesus Christ becomes unto knowledge, so powerful that the spirit cannot be restrained to testify to those who desire to know for themselves.

If anyone is interested in hearing the words of living prophets today, they may listen to the General Conference of the Church this weekend, both Saturday and Sunday. You can check your local cable, etc... or go to lds.org for more information.

Ask and it shall be given, Seek and ye shall find, Knock and it shall be opened unto you...

This is His promise to all.

To reiterate: It is all about "prophets" (profits??????):

As per as per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Christian theologian, God does not know the Future. From his book, Church: The Human Story of God,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And if God does not know the future, Mohammed, Jesus, Joseph Smith and Isaiah surely did not.

In two sentences of profound common sense, Schillibeeckx has reduced the OT, NT, the Book of Mormon(etc.) and the Koran to mostly good but wishful thinking of many ancient scribes.

This falls correctly in line with two of God's humankind's greatest dependent gifts, i.e. Free Will and Future.

RTC's Slander of Huff

RTC: I used to consider you a compassionate soul.
I think I still do.

but your presumption, as outlined eloquently by Hueff, that you are honest and trying to tell the truth
while he is merely trying to "propagandize"
is
I am afraid
as flagrantly offensive as he, in his unduly polite way, has pointed out to you.

You must know, as a seminary teacher, that Self Righteousness towards your fellow men is a quality that Jesus never would have oondoned.

And, may I say, especially self=righteousness when it comes from YOU and is directed as such men as Hueff, who has showed Christ=like forbearance and compassion and dedication to the truth on this site, and has done so with nearly faultless intelligence and reasoning,
which can not be said of all the rest of us.

RTC said,
"So to "liken" themselves to the faithful of the church "as if" they were truly at one time the honest and faithful, instead of admitting that they were simply a wolf in sheep's clothing just looking for a self-justified way out, is pure denial of these individuals and that they choose to not see this in themselves is clear evidence in the style in which they propagandize."

You seem mighty sure of this. The arrogance you show by suggesting you know my heart, and what I believed to my core is absurd. I have tried to be nice to you and apologize for offending you. But, I am sick of you implying that I am not sincere. My wife says it was my sincerity that attracted her to me.

Ask anyone who has ever known me if I did not have a strong and firm testimony? Ask the missionaries I taught in the MTC, ask either of the two Bishops for whom I served as counselors, ask my father or my wife, or anyone else you think might know me well enough to have shared sacred experiences with me, whether they considered me to be among the very elect. Read my journal and weep as your heart will be touched and you will feel what you believe to be the Spirit testify that I believed I had an intimate relationship with my Father in Heaven.

Smith's Civil War Prophecy:

RTC repeats John's citing of the Civil War Prophecy, as if it helps the case for Smith's veracity.

Yes, Smith got SOME things right. But he got SOME things wrong. Do we put faith in a prophet whose prophecies are PART right? Is God right only PART of the time?

Here is Smith's text:
"Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. 3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations," (Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3). See context

Conclusion: This is clearly another false prophecy By Smith since all nations did not get involved in the American Civil War.

RTC
as you no doubt realized, the last line of my post:
"my words shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled"
is Smith's line from the D&C that you quoted.

BUT,
many of his prophecies have passed the time when they could have been "fulfilled"
and have therefore Passed Away and NOT been fulfilled.

But you still believe Smith, even though he was demonstrably NOT telling you the TRUTH when he said "my words shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled"
and who knows how many other times?

As George Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on (stumbling sound) ... me"

Hello RTC

Let me posit a hypothesis:

We are ALL seeking the Truth, Mormons, ex-Mormons, and Never been Mormons.

It is difficult to know what to believe in this world.

the story of Joseph Smith began when he wanted to KNOW which was the True Church, and he was confused.

I have also wanted to know if the Church is the true Church.

We know that Millions say every testimony meeting:
"I know the church is True." Many say that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and so is GBH.

What does it "mean" to know? Do you and your seminary students talk about that?

Here is a standard definition that is the result of religious and philosophical people grappling with this difficult question for 3,000 years:

"If someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true, but he or she may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. We would not accurately say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true."

How do Mormons "know" the Church is True.

Many of Smith's prophecies have turned out to be Not True. Is he still a True Prophet? Yes, unless he's not? Can you see how I would be confused?

How do I know the Book of Mormon is "True."? Despite there being loads of contradictory evidence to its truthfulness, and None that corroborates it?

Because I pray and get a Burning in my chest?

Well my Muslim friend prays to Allah 5 times a day and gets a burning in his chest that is even hotter than mine, and he believes things that contradict me.

He KNOWS that Jesus is NOT the Savior of the World.

The fact is, according to any reasonable definition of the word "know"
you can't know Joseph Smith told the Truth
any more than you can Know that I am Betty.

my words shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled

I have just been attempting to catch up on this thread and must admit that I have not read even todays post. Although concerning what I have read, If one did not know the topic, they would be quite confused as there has been quite the difficulty as always on this thread to stay focused.

So many agendas.

I appreciated the talk that was posted early on, which was given by Jeffrey Holland entitled "Terror, Triumph and a Wedding Feast". I just happen to be teaching about the second coming with my seminary students this past week. I wrote the title of this talk on my chalkboard and asked my students what they thought this could be referring to? I got blank stares as usual. lol I then suggested they go into the index of their scriptures and look for words or like words and see if they could make some connections and find what these words were associated with?

After a while of searching and discussing this is what they came up with...

Resurrection
bridegroom
church
prepare
wicked
judgement
repent
burn
fear
consumed
gathered
called
chosen
joy
saved
glory
praise
diligent
sing

After we discussed briefly these different topics I asked them what relationship each of these events had to the others -- in other words -- what IS the main event? They soon realized that they ALL will happen together --

The Second Coming!!!

Which, YES... I do believe will happen. We also agreed that the other reference of "the great and dreadful day" sounded very appropriate considering what we had found.

We concluded that we will seek for a great and triumphant day by keeping the commandments and following the Spirit that we might have the promised peace to those who wait upon the Lord in these, the last days.

Probably the most interesting part of the discovery process for my students was that they needed to KNOW for themselves by the Spirit IF the gospel IS true? Bottom line... that is the most important work they must do for themselves in order to stand on their own and obtain peace.

It is this PEACE that I would like to focus toward and place in contrast to what I have observed in many of the post that I have thus far read; and to which I feel my students discovered the vital importance of in their own discovery, in order to know for themselves that the gospel is true.

John 14:26-27

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."

I find that many of those who comment on Brother Otterson's statements, which he makes on behalf of the lds church and that are in opposition to his views are those that are now disaffected from the mormon church?

Many of these same individuals now feel that IF the "mormons" knew about this or that, we would turn from the church like YOU have? It seems as though they give themselves a credit beyond repute? As IF the journey they have been on IS the one that we all would likely have as well, and abandon ship with them, IF we but only knew the "truth" as they now know it. The claim is that they were "once" even as "we" are "now"! But now they have come to their senses after a long try at blind following and are inviting us to take off the shackles and join them?

So to "liken" themselves to the faithful of the church "as if" they were truly at one time the honest and faithful, instead of admitting that they were simply a wolf in sheep's clothing just looking for a self-justified way out, is pure denial of these individuals and that they choose to not see this in themselves is clear evidence in the style in which they propagandize.

The word apostates is defined as - abandoning a religious or political belief or principle. But it actually is more than the abandoning of it. In a religious meaning it goes much deeper. One must validate the abandonment, for they have turned away from and opposed that which is good toward that which is opposite of good. In reality one must validate the life, literally.

So for an apostate they must now validate their new life choices that they are now living openly. Their life WORK is now to validate turning away and attempting to PROVE themselves in that decision they have made to TURN AWAY FROM GOOD or righteousness. Some have websites to teach their new found doctrines that oppose their old doctrines to reinforce and validate this turn. Others may blog to convince themselves of their new truth. It becomes then a continual search for peace.

Why do they not just walk away and live a NEW LIFE? Because, it is impossible for them to do this as they are in opposition to TRUTH and truth is what gives them life literally. He who created them and gives them LIFE will NOT abandon them EVER.

One of my favorite scriptural references is found in the Doctrine and Covenants. In fact it is in section ONE, which happens to be the preface. A preface is written usually by the author of a book and will give a general overview of the purpose of the work he/she is placing before one. I personally consider reading the preface to any book absolutely mandatory as it is PERSONAL and lets me know how credible the author is regarding his entire work, particularly in reading non-fiction.

The author of the Doctrine and Covenants is the Lord Jesus Christ and was given through revelation by his prophet and friend Joseph Smith.

D&C 1:37-38

"Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises in them shall all be fulfilled.

What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my words shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

I want you all to know that I have a testimony of these words, regardless of the frailties of men. I believe that God upholds the words of His prophets and does not need anyone making apologies for those who speak by His voice. I personally and firmly believe that He will confirm ALL of His words and delights to do so.

Prior to the second coming there are many prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled, but some of them can be seen in process right before our very eyes, even as we speak. All we need do is l@@k or should I say "read"?

Doctrine and Covenants section 86 just happens to "precede" the revelation which includes the civil war prophecy. Some would consider this quite interesting, although not those who consider Joseph Smith a prophet of God.

V. 4-7

"But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender--

Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields;

But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.

Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall gather out the wheat from among the tares..."

D&C 101:22

 "Behold, it is my will, that all they who call on my name, and worship me according to mine everlasting gospel, should gather together, and stand in holy places;"

Terror, Triumph and A Wedding Feast : For those who do not fear him, and for those who wait upon Him and for those who know best of themselves ---- I imagine, for all of those... IT will be the expected time of arrival.

*There is room for differences of emphasis even among Mormons.* You're talking about outside of Utah, right?

'Maybe Joseph really was using God's words when he made the Civil War Prophecy,
but when he made the Celestial Kingdom prophecy
he got mixed up with a book he had read in the library in Palmyra."

And more likely, Joseph Smith suffered from hallucinations and mental diseases that rendered him incapable of telling fact from fantasy, and he made the whole story up.

You know, John D
this Betty/James confusion
is directly analogous
to the
Joseph Smith Revelations Problems.

How do we know when the words he presented to us as Revelation from the Mouth of God
were actually
his own Folk Wisdom transliterations of what he *thought* God was saying,
but that he got wrong because he wasn't a perfect instrument.

Maybe Joseph really was using God's words when he made the Civil War Prophecy,
but when he made the Celestial Kingdom prophecy
he got mixed up with a book he had read in the library in Palmyra.

Some of his revelations were Truly the word of God.
and Some weren't.

the problem is: how do we know which are which. that is the epistomological problem, isn't it?

As our other brother used to say
"If Shakespeare's plays weren't written by him, they were written by somebody elso of the same name."

The End is near!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/24/mormons.coffee.ap/index.html

"Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image"

"TAYLORSVILLE, Utah (AP) -- For a coffee shop, T-shirts of a Mormon angel with java flowing into his trumpet are selling well. But they don't have the blessing of religious leaders.

The shirts have upset the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only is the angel Moroni a revered figure -- Mormons believe he appeared to church founder Joseph Smith -- but church members are discouraged from drinking coffee.

The shirts show Moroni, a male figure in a robe blowing a trumpet. The trumpet is turned up at an angle as coffee is poured in.
"

My T-Shirt rendition "Baloney to Mythical Moroni"

John
Betty just let me know that you Outed us.

Question: Can you Prove that i am NOT Betty's brother?

If you can, then I will prove to you that God does not exist.

John
you are right.
we are brother and sister.

I know I left, I do not have time now to continue this dialogue, but I just have to ask about these uncanny resemblances:

Betty and James both claimed to leave the church because of the injustice they felt his/her LDS belief posed to their Jewish roommate their first year of College.

Both claim to play for the other team.

Both claim to be at Harvard

Both like to reference Kantian and Kohlberg moral philosophy

Both have very similar writing styles and format

Both take particular issue with CK and True Church ideas

Both have fathers who are Stake Presidents

Both like to tout their prestigious Mormon ancestry

Now James claims to have coined the term Gospel of John, when for all I can see it was a Betty original. Did I miss something?

Thankful

John D and I and you and all of us are On Trial Here.

We are all good human beings, Mormon and non-Mormon.

We are examining with each other what it "makes sense" to believe.

We all have expressed our respect for John's intelligence and integrity many times.

The fact that is he unusually able to articulate complicated ideas means that the rest of us will engage his ideas on a serious level.

Like submitting them to strict logical and epistemological and ontological analysis, and John has often done with us.

One of my best friends is the Past Catholic Chaplain at Harvard University. We have these kinds of discussions about Catholic beliefs all the time.

He is as good a person as John, and as smart.

John's trial will not have the same results as the Inquisition,
or for that matter the recent LDS trial of of the guy Nielson who said some nice things about Gay people (i think he is now an ex-LDS).

John is a big lovable boy: he can take it. And he DOES enjoy having his own gospel.

John D.,

It seems you are now on trial next to Joseph and Jesus.

Congratulations

The Late John Dappley
suggests that I am positing a Black and White Dichotomy in critiquing his belief criteria.

Insofar as I believe that everything Joseph Smith described as "Prophecy from God"
WAS NOT prophecy from God,
I suppose he is correct.

Every Prophecy of Smith's is Black.
Where is the White?

Now even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so some of Smith's 'Prophecies" were at least partially true, if as useful as my 'prophesying" that Alberto Gonzalez will resign within a month.

John wants to choose which elements of Smith's prophecies to believe and which not to.

i like to choose which items I order off the menu at my favorite restaurant.

The fact that John likes an element of Smith's prophecies and not another

has NO BEARING on the Truth Value of the Prophecy, and most importantly on whether it came from God or was a psychotic break or a marketing tactic.

And the fact that many of the prophecies direct from a perfect God turn out to be imperfect would cause any 12 year old to doubt the varacity of the others.

"Not Even the Angels Know" is Blatant Psychological Manipulation

Churches depend on keeping their members eternally vigilant, and scared, in order to keep the tithing flowing through the tills.

This kind of "threat" is a blatantly obvious tactic to keep people scared.

It is Just like the scurrilous tactics the Bush Administration has been using for years in the
"WAr on Terror."

Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud.
"At a Time of My Choosing" Bush always says (might he think HE is God, or at least "a god.")
Heightened Yellow Alerts at just the right time politically.
About 600 other examples.

Not Even the Angels is a religious version of the same scam.

Notably lucid and thorough past Dave,
even for you.

To attempt to distill a couple of points:

1. Doc's defense of the BoA is the common one: You Can't Prove that it is Not True (just as you can't prove that God doesn't exist).

Aside from the fact that this is an incredibly flimsy platform to build a belief on (Sand rather than Rock to say the least)
as the smart alecks have already said, it is an equally useful justification for belief in Zeus and the Tooth Fairy.

2. I emphatically agree with you that the Picking and Choosing of Prophecies and elements of prophecies to believe
)John's Big Things but not all the Little Things)
is the Slipperyest of slopes.

Colbert has the term for this: "Truthiness."

John my friend is no longer here, but he appreciated my coinage of his chosen portfolio of beliefs being
The Gospel of John.

What's wrong with a little smart alecky-ness every once in a while?

Doc:

I am well aware of the work of John Gee, Hugh Nibley, Kerry Shirts, Jeff Lindsey, and many others, and have examined the 1st century magic papyrus that has a lion couch and a laundry list of historic religious figures from throughout the Roman Empire and includes the name of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. I find that it implies nothing about the validity of the Book of Abraham. I have read the old books, like the book of Enoch and see nothing but strained, desparate attempts to find parallels, which when given perspective are not that impressive.

But, I am sure you disagree. We can agree to disagree. All I have ever wanted is for the membership of the Church to just at least examine the evidence both pro and con. You have done that. I hope you will consider me your friend as I do you. Although I do not believe in God, I still have lots of charity for my fellow human beings.

John D.,

OK, I just read that you are ending your participation in this thread. You seem to make a big deal that prophets can be wrong about the little things in their revelations, but are never wrong about the big things. In the case of the BoA, everything is wrong (Egyptians never ritually sacrificed people, the astronomy lesson comes from Thomas Dick and Swedenborg, blacks descend from Cain is prejudice of the times, a man with the characteristics of Adam never existed [I'd be happy to go through the evidence of that]). What are the big things that are left?

I see absolutely no reason to trust that Joseph was right about any big things, except for maybe his theology is beautiful and when I see beauty I feel good inside. Lord of the Rings is also beautiful to me, so much so that it made me cry I felt so good inside. I guess I should assume that Tolkein was wrong about many of the small details, but the big things like Middle Earth and the Ring really do exist. (OK, I apologize because I am being a little snooty now). If you were responding, I'd ask what gives you any indication that Joseph might have been telling the truth about the big things.

Perhaps you need to look into Biblical criticism about the big things like the mission of Jesus, the origins of the creation and the fall stories, and anything else you consider to be big. Everything collapses. I see no reason to put my faith in this elaborate myth. I might as well put my faith in the ancient Egyptian religion or Greek mythology. All are equal in having no evidence that would even lead me to consider that there might be something to them. I'd be happy to show you why the LDS religion has nothing that hints at a supernatural connection either. Do I need to go into why people in 1832 would suspect that GB might join the South or slaves might be used as soldiers. There is nothing even slightly intriguing about that prophecy when one reads what was in the papers at the time. It is about as interesting as if I predicted that Attorney General Gonzales will lose his job shortly.

Oh, and about science. I think I would rewoed the difference in assumptions as scientists do not believe the universe or life was planned, religious people believe they were planned. Scientists believe in organizing forces that are not random although they take advantage of chance.

I would adopt the assumption of things being planned if I saw any compelling evidence of that planning. I am very familiar with all the arguments of intelligent design and know how to refute them. I repeat that I have seen nothing that persuades me that there must have been a plan. In fact, it is difficult to impose a plan on some observations. But, you again would say that it is only the big things that are planned. And I would again ask where the evidence is that would lead you to infer that planning is the best model for the universe.

Huffenhardt,
But you haven't shown the BOA to be false, you've shown that with your set of inferences about what the book is and where it came from, and the evidence you have looked at you have concluded it is most likely false. Much ink has been spilled over this, I really don't care to carry it farther except to say, the BOA has some startling similarities to Abrahamic literature that has come to light since Joseph Smith's day and maybe, just maybe, your conclusion is premature. But then I don't expect to persuade you. You are free to believe what you want and I wish you well.

John D.,

You have set up a straw man. None of us have ever expected the prophets to be perfect or free from the attitudes and prejudices of their times. I expect that at times the prophets would make silly statements such as that there were men living on the moon that dress like Quakers. Who cares? They are mere mortals. But, when they claim to be speaking for God, when they create scripture, when they unite to make proclamations on doctrine, etc, I do expect them to be right about that. Else, what is the point of having prophets? If anything they proclaim today as an eternal truth and the mind and will of God can be shown to be in error tomorrow, they are no better than any other person speaking their mind. If there is no way to tell when they are speaking the truth or speaking falsly, they are no different than the advice of any other man, except every other man has the good sense to not claim to speak for God when they know they are not.

No human should bear false witness. If you don't really know that your words come from God, then don't claim that you do know. It is misleading and it is using God's name in vain. Prophets misrepresent what they are doing. When they speak as men, I don't care what silly stuff they say, but when they claim to speak for God and they are not then that is a heinous crime. If they are always speaking as men and suspect that they might have a little inspiration, then they should say that. Otherwise, I'd rather listen to people who humble acknowledge that they are only speaking their opinion.

I have shown that at least parts of the BoA are false. If we can't trust the scriptures to be true that came directly from the head prophet of this dispensation, what can we trust?

Doc:

I respect your right to hold whatever belief you want. I have not been sarcastic, nor spewing out vitrol, nor have I accused anyone of being stupid, etc. I am glad that you have already looked into everything I am having Mormons consider. Most Mormons have not looked into this before and they need to. A lot of Mormons would no longer be as believing if they knew these things. They have not been informed of all the things that might affect their decision to consent. Informed consent is a wonderful principle, and I want to make sure Mormons, whom I love, are informed. If they choose to consent anyway, as you have done, then fine. But, it is not fair to expect obedience as the church does of people who have not been informed of all the relevant information.

I have never said that there is no good in Mormonism. There is some good. I might have stayed in the Church even though I no longer believe it is true, except that I find several beliefs and practices intolerable and morally reprehensive. I find skepticism to be healthy as it is our only guard against being taken advantage of. I appreciate sacrifice for a cause I believe in.

I am not spitting out insults. I never said life is black or white. I believe that we live and deal with probabilities. If you look at my language, I did not say that Christ will not return, I said that it most likely will not happen. I am atheist, but I know that it is impossible to prove that some sort of god does not exist, therefore I merely say that it is very unlikely. And we can differ on that.

John D:

John, I know that you have said that you are heading off, and I will be also after this brief response to you, but I did want to clarify something.

You write: "I respect your idealization of science, though I doubt the ideal is the reality. If someone found a rabbit in Pre-Cambrian strata, I don’t think it would not cause a scientific revolution, it would be met with a skeptical alternative explanations or just treated as an anomaly."

I believe, as I have said previously, that science is the best "truth-detector" one can call on. But, I have also said that it is certainly not perfect, and there have been things done in the name of science (Eugenics, as only one example) that were decidedly unethical. There have been hoaxes lauched in the robes of science, though they were unscientific at their root. There are, constantly, errors and mistakes being made by scientists every minute of every day. There is also amongst scientists, all of the human jealousies and insecurities that plague any other such group.

However, the formal scientific method, aside from the human beings who utilize it, is self-correcting. That is the fundamental power behind it, without verification, theories go poof! Sometimes in an instant (cold-fusion), sometimes over time (psychoanalysis). If a rabbit fossil were to be found in pre-cambrian strata, and verified by careful peer review, it would FORCE an alteration in current evolutionary theory. It might even throw it out entirely. Just one "anomaly" of this type would be enough. That is amazing to much of the laity, but there it is.

So, John. Though you are, as I also said before, intellectually nimble, it is the requirement for such nimbleness within the supernatural apologist that reinforces my respect for the formal scientific method.

I further note that your "falsificative" requirement for JS' prophet status would itself require a suspension of the laws of nature. Thus, I think that your belief is quite safe from any pesky inference drawn from circumstantial evidence.

My best to you, and Huff, James and ME (wherever he may be). I am away for the weekend, so this is my last for awhile.

at the religious morgue.

be scared of death, very scared!

at the scientific morgue.

scientists are too busy trying to figure out why death!and how and when and since when and how come!,every scientist has 2 electronic microscop on the eyes and 2osciloscopes on the head,every scientist has scientific diaper in case he or she get so scientific and seep undetected science in his or her pants.
scientists at the scientific morgue are not limited to those scientists who praise the lord darwin son of evolution who down evoluted in geo-organic grave yard for the sin of man kind long time ago,but the chaple at the morgue is full of pluralistic diversfied scientists ,christian scientists who praise the idolism of biological son of god with their different scientific approaching and scientific methodolgy ,especially saint james the psychatrist and jone m the archeologist,who they still diging in the ruin and junk of athen and rome.

scientists at the morgue trying hard to discover the secret of life and secret of death ,the higest preist of evolution proclaming to mankind that you shall remain scientists no matter what,while the highest preist in christianty conventional and modern proclaming to mankind that you shall be saved in nature and after nature as long as you remain jesusist .

people ,ignorance is serious sign of the last day.know who created you study his knoweldge ,study what you are suppose to do in this life for better after life.
the creator of life ,death and after death is worthy of answering this serious question.

Final religious statement…

The randomness of “life, the universe and everything” is a presupposition in the life sciences. We have a retroactive explanation of how natural phenomena came to be, given the presupposition of randomness. This must be assumed, it cannot be verified.

Religious people have a presupposition of non-randomness or intelligence. If I am talking to an individual who shares that assumption with me, we can talk about how we try to understand the guiding force in the universe. I think Mormonism offers the best explanation to life given my initial assumption.

Just a few Q & As before I go:

First why would powerful intelligence create the world we have as it is?

A: Human souls have always existed and the conditions of this world, with all its pain, suffering and unanswered questions, allow us to reach our full potential and our greatest capacity for happiness.

Why would a powerful, intelligent being be so invested in human souls?

A: He is essentially one of us. We are part of his family. He has gained a supreme state of being and now he wants us to have it too because he is emotionally invested in us, the way beings like us are emotionally invested in each other.

How do we know this?

A: God has revealed them to us, like a Father on earth provides valuable information to a child. It does not matter your social standing, or education. God reveals His most important truths via means available to everyone. Direct revelation to the heart and soul.

These go on and on. Joseph’s revelations give perspective to the intelligent Universe unlike any other revelations I know of.

In short, I think Mormonism is very compelling if you accept the initial assumption of intelligence. If you do not, no world view postulating intelligence will seem very valid, especially a revelatory one and ultimately, we will not get very far. The heart of religion is lost when one only examines it in a petri-dish.

I know other people find their religions compelling, and I want to know why (that‘s why I like anthro- of religion). If I find a more compelling religion else where, I would embrace it, or at least integrate what I find compelling in their faith into my own beliefs.

Now everyone, answering all of you has monopolized my Friday night. I know you will likely proceed to tell me your humble perspective on all I have written and I will allow you to do so, as Dave has said, "without contest."

I will say good bye to this thread for now.

Betty:

“Once one goes down the road of relativising the revealed word of God through his prophets, you only have the Gospel of John.”

I really like this statement and so does my wife. I do try and involve God intimately in the religious beliefs I accept. I do believe in personal revelation, despite the trivialization of this process by everyone here. It seems you are positing an all or nothing, fundamentalist dichotomy. Betty, this is unlike you!

My friend Pheadrus,

Unuanced Mormonism is full of leaks yes indeed. Every unuanced view of life is full of leaks. But if I loose the unuanced computer download view of revelation for a more nuanced dialectic view of revelation, most holes repair themselves. This view of revelation is supported in Mormon scripture, and I would have no problem teaching it at church. The computer download version seems a bit cartoonish anyway.

I respect your idealization of science, though I doubt the ideal is the reality. If someone found a rabbit in Pre-Cambrian strata, I don’t think it would not cause a scientific revolution, it would be met with a skeptical alternative explanations or just treated as an anomaly. Khun documents this common occurrence in the Scientific Community. Not to say nothing would persuade them, but it would require a major smoking gun.

As for me, I will tell you what I think are very weak criticisms, considering the splendid and beautiful theological and scriptural tapestry weaved by Joseph Smith (and God):

1) Evidence of the human in revelation
2) Evidence of human frailties in Prophets

What would persuade me to reject the whole of Mormonism?

Good evidence that Joseph did not sincerely believe in his Prophetic calling, but intentionally made it all up for his own gain. A non-coerced admission by Joseph Smith himself would work. Most claims that he was a conscious fraud depend on inference and conjecture. In short, the evidence of this is anything but clear (As it is for one like James Strange; see Foster Lawrence, “Religion and Sexuality“). Many of Joseph’s earlier writings demonstrate earnest religious sincerity. Also, his Mother records various emotional displays in the intimate context of family which are difficult to imagine coming from a charlatan e.g. immense tear filled joy at his Father’s baptism into the Mormon church, extreme relief when the witnesses were finally shown the plates and the angel etc.

This kind of evidence has caused non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism Jan Ships to reject the idea that Joseph was conscious fraud. I think it is a well founded assertion that Joseph sincerely believed himself to be Prophet. I am not saying this proves Mormonism by any means.

As per Dave's critique of the Human in revelation:

As the Lord said to Moses,

“For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
(Moses 1:39)

The role of Prophets and scriptures is to bring about this work. Certain folk knowledge and anachronisms are irrelevant to this.

Everything said about “philosophies of men, mingled with scripture”, and the Prophets leading no one astray must be seen in that context. The latter statement made by Woodruff was made when he was ending a practice that many believed was essential to their salvation. It is in that context I read the statement.

More innocent mistakes are acknowledged in the scriptures, the title page in the Book of Mormon being one of those acknowledgements.

As for the Deuteronomy verse, it is a paradox. If I accept that scripture unequivocally, I must reject Jesus. If I reject Jesus, then I have no reason to accept that scripture. So I just assume it has limited application or is simply wrong. I don’t accept the concept of Biblical inerrancy anyways.

First for my view on Prophetic fallibility, I’ll post a response I made to Pheadrus. One of my first:

Pheadrus wrote:
"would you please explain why any Mormon would then place any weight whatsoever in what any of the church's prophets say?"

Before I begin my response, I would like to tie it back to the theme of this thread so not to get too off the subject. When Latter Day Saints say that Jesus is “living” they mean more than that he is just alive somewhere--they mean that he is actively interacting with human kind in same way he did in Biblical times. We believe that Jesus is Yahweh of the Old Testament- he is one who calls Prophets to speak in his name, and establishes a covenant people guided and held together by the ministry of these prophets. The “Good News” of what we call the Restored Gospel of Christ is both that Christ lived and died to save us from the inevitable consequences of our sins, but also that the grand narrative of God found in the Bible continues in our day. Prophets and apostles commune with God and speak in His name, angels visit the earth, miracles occur and the scriptural cannon is expanded.
These Modern Day Prophets have been inspiring people to be disciples of Christ and maintaining a unified covenant people of the Lord for nearly two hundred years. They have said many things and practically been followed around with a stenographer everywhere they’ve gone. This vast and rich record has been exploited by those who are attempting to demonstrate that the claim that God has called Prophets today are false.
There are within this records occasional statements which injure modern sentiment, Mormon and non-Mormon alike. This is inevitable when you have people who are from different times and places, and who, consequently, have absorbed different assumptions about the nature of reality.
The point I wish to make is that non-believers expect more from these men than their mantel affords them. These are not embodied gods, but rather Prophets and Apostles after the Biblical tradition. The Biblical record demonstrates that God did not culturally reprogram His Prophets and Apostles into children of the enlightenment. For example Moses, Abraham, Peter and Paul did not share our modern abhorrence to slavery, and patriarchal dominance. Because I personally believe that God does abhor these things, I must explain how God speaks through these individuals while at the same time looking past their cultural baggage.
In Social Work discourse there is a saying ‘start where the client is.’ Which is what the Lord must do with us, he cannot give us all truth at once:
“For precept must be upon precept…line upon line…here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).
In our day Jesus has said:
“these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” (D&C 1:24).
The Lord must work within our weakness (opinions, lame brained ideas, personality defects, limited intelligence) and language (which necessarily includes our categories of thought and taken for granted assumptions) to even communicate with us.
This is a large part of the Prophetic fallibility I was talking about.
So why should we give any weight to what the Prophets say? Because despite this limitation, the Lord still speaks to His people through them.
Followers of Paul and Peter perhaps did not become enlightened with regards to slavery, but that did not prevent them from learning many principles of Christian discipleship and the only name under which they could enter the Kingdom of God.
Modern Prophet’s role is to point the way to Christ. It is their calling to prepare and sanctify the covenant people of the Lord for blessings in Eternity.
The Lord calls other people to fulfill other missions. God’s work extends beyond the church and He has servants outside of it. I believe He called people like Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, John Wesley, Charles Darwin etc., to fulfill different missions than that of a Prophet after the Biblical tradition.
I, for one, am not bothered that a Prophet’s role is so limited. Their words and teachings have given me the abundant life. Life following their counsel is radiant and beautiful. The Holy Spirit bears witness to my Spirit that they speak for Jesus. Their words bring me to Him and I thus partake of His peace.
“If there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ”
(Mormon, Title page of the Book of Mormon).

Prophecy:

Heff, you claim to have easily trivialized the war profecy.

Notice that I put “somewhat impressive” in parenthesis next to civil war prediction in my post. I know it was a prevalent prediction at the time. What I think is more impressive are the other details on the list (Slaves as solders, south calling GB etc).

Folks,
I understand you have harsh feeling about these things. What you don't seem to realize is that this anger colors everything you are saying. As flattering as it is to be told over and over that if I merely thought about it or had a high school education that I would throw my religion away, I'm not buying it.

I'm not buying it because I already know about all the things you are pointing out in your condescending way and I have made a choice not to follow your path. You may have some need to believe that Dallin H oakes and Gordon B. Hinkley have it out to lie and decieve us poor weak minded folk. I am not buying your (emotionally colored) conspiracy theories. I don't see the logic anything near compelling. I have seen too much good come from Mormonism to throw it away. I have found cynicism to be too caustic and poisonous to let it take deep root within me.

Now you may have decided that your heritage is just a bunch of gullible fools and criminals, but I am not buying it. You may not appreciate things like faith and sacrifice for a cause you believe in but I do. I find it moving. You may even think it tragic and misguided but that is a choice. Faith in a prophet need not be blind, I know Blake Osler from the internet quite well and I think his expansion theory makes a lot of sense.

I am pretty much overeducated, trained in neuroscience and probably would not be considered an intellectual lightweight and yet I do not choose to see things as you do. Life is NEVER as black and white as you are making it out to be. You can call me illogical and spit out whatever insults you like but that is not going to change.

Betty,

I agree and if a wave of extremism ever sweeps over the land from either direction, you make sure the Mormons aren't exterminated and I'll make sure Gays aren't rounded up and left on a desert island eh?

Thanks for your kind words.

I think I shall take some time away from the blogosphere now.

have a good weekend my friend!

HM

yes, that answers my question.

I think the parts of Mormonism that you concentrate on help you to be become a better person than the already very good person that you already are.

And I applaud your concentration on being a good mother and a good friend.

I think this discussion between an LDS (you) and a Non-LDS (me) is useful in that it makes us both think about how we talk about Hell and Redemption and the kind of universe we live in,

and how we first want to develop our Loving Kindness to our family and friends and fellow humans

and NOT concentrate on damning to Hell those who are not like us.

luve,

Betty

Doc:

I don't believe that I have been ridiculing, using ad-hominem attacks, or been sarcastic in any of my posts. Correct me if I am wrong. The most edgy language in my posts are contained in my quotes of other people's words that I just relayed.

I am very happy and at peace, and I hope that you are too. All of this information I have both for and against Mormonism I gathered before my exit from the Church. As a true believing member, I was a scriptorian and a lover of early church history. I was an amateur apologist, defending the church against its critics. When I discovered that the BoA could not be true no matter how loosely one wanted to use the word translation or revelation, I began to re-evaluate all the evidences I had for the truthfulness of the Church: fulfilled prophecies, Book of Mormon evidences like NHM, the testimony of the 3 witnesses, etc. Each one I had thought was so solid, but they all melted away. None could reverse the crushing tide of the evidence against the Church. And the burning in the bosom was useless as an identifier of truth, since it had told me some things were true which I now knew beyond a doubt were not true. I looked into the lives of our leaders since Joseph. Gordon Hinckley covered up the Church's involvement with Hoffman when the police when investigating the bombings/murder. Dallin H. Oaks and Boyd K. Packer are dedicated to making sure current members don't know the real church history. It just makes me sick. I still love the Mormon people, and I still have an interest in Mormon things as it has affected my entire life.

Betty: I did not realize this until just now, but it looks like there is no way to email me through my blog. So, I just created a new message to make it possible. You will see it.

Doc

I mentioned Joseph Smith to a Comparative Religion teacher at the school I work at,

a fellow noted for his compassion and fair mindedness and encyclopedic knowledge, and definitely a believer in God (though probably not YOURS)

and his reply was:
"oh, Joseph Smith, he was a complete Charlatan, wasn't he?"

It does not take a high degree of learning or logic to discern Smith's true nature.

It takes this: Not being an indoctrinated Mormon.

Does John Believe the "Church"
Or What He wants to Believe

Sorry John my friend,
but Huff exposes the chasms in your selective belief in Revelation much better than I or James have.

There is no principle we can discern by which you decide which Revelations to accept as God-inspired and worthy of our obeisiance,
versus
those that you think are a mixture of Revelation and Folk Wisdom,
versus
those that God Revealed but then decided 100 years later to Un-Reveal.

The only principle in your belief in TRUTH that I can discern is
I believe it because it seems right to me, after making allowances for context and personality and culture and postmodernism. Relativism of the first order.

Not
I believe it because a prophet said it was the reavealed word of God.

I love you, we all love you, but the basis of your beliefs if built on Sand. Once one goes down the road of relativising the revealed word of God through his prophets, you only have the Gospel of John.

PO: why would God bother to make a revelation about the Civil War starting in South Carolina? I know, I know, God's intelligence is so much greater than mine that I shouldn't even ask.

Hey Betty,

I myself don't think much about hell accept when I am asked about it in a thread now I guess. I think mostly about the kind of family I want to have, the kind of mother and friend I want to be. I think about how my mistakes get in the way of my goals and that I need to repent and do better so my kids don't pick up on my bad habits or so I can have the Holy Ghost as my companion.

I think by nature humans tend to be black and white thinkers however. We don't even fully develop the analytical portion of our brain until we are in our early 20's so that may account for why a heaven / hell dicotomy may persist in the minds of some LDS as a opposed to a heavenly continuum and a hell that has an end. I don't know? Like you, I can't recall hell being mentioned much in the church but rather an emphasis on eternal families.

Hope that answers your question?

Doc
My relationship with Joseph Smith is more personal than you imply.
Kinda like having a personal relationship to Christ.

My GG grandfather Willard Richards was the subject of one of Smith's prophecies: a hail of bullets in the Nauvoo jail miraculously missed Dr Richards.

So the fraud and deceit and charlatanism of Smith ALMOST meant that I was never born.

I am PO'd at Smith and the General Authorities and all the Church leaders who thought I was too child like to know the truth, to read Un-Faithful History, to really see what the basis of Smith's "revelations" and Celestial Kingdom scheme (it was Swedenbourg) source was.

So forgive me for being aggrieved at being deceived and treated like a child all these years. I guess I should just be like a good slave and say
:Yahsuh, whatever you say Sir."

John D.,

This isn't about what the critics or the apologists have to say; I know what they have to say. This is about my and your beliefs about what we can tell from the evidence surrounding the BoA.

Frankly, John, I have come to like you. And although I ultimately respect your right to believe whatever you wish, for as long as you are willing to talk I'd like to point out a couple of things to you. It is sad for me to read that you are looking forward to Christ's second coming, which in all likelihood will never come.

I did not know whether you had heard of Blake Ostler or not, but since he was the first to publish this theory, the concept of the prophet adding his own ideas (that are sometimes false) to the core revelation he receives from God is referred to as Blake Ostler's expansion theory among apologists and critics.

First, I must note that this is a very radical view and very different than the orthodox view of revelation that is taught throughout the Church from GC to Sunday School. Heck, if I could just get Mormons to realize that Joseph did not receive conventional revelation, I'd be fine if they adopted the expansion theory. At least then they would question whether their prophets are leading them astray with their own ideas.

Let's take a look at some of the teachings of the church that reject your new type of revelation (of course the catch is, you can dismiss all of these statements as merely the opinions of the prophets).

1) Satan's ministers teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, but according to your view when Joseph created scripture (BoA) he mingled his own philosophies with what he received from God.

2) Wilford Woodruff declared, "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.) Yet, with your view of revelation there is the very real possibility that the prophet will lead us astray by getting us to accept his opinion that he mingled with his revelations as the mind and will of God itself.

3) In a 1993 speech by Boyd K. Packer, he listed Cafeteria Mormons as one of the enemies of the church. But, your approach requires you to accept some verses of scripture and reject others.

4) D&C 68:4, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation". Yet, according to you, at least sometimes, the scriptures they create will have false opinions of men in it.

5) Duet 18:18-22: "18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

6) D&C 9:8-9: "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me." So, not only is the prophet to study it out in their mind, but there is a way to tell whether what they think is true. Evidently, Joseph either did not listen for the burning bosom when he wrote about Chaldea or Egypt being named after Egyptus, etc, or he simply cannot tell when he is following God or not. Either way it makes for some very unreliable scriptures.

Look, I view the expansion thesis as a desparate attempt to hold things together. It produces notoriously unreliable scripture in which neither the reader nor the prophet has a clue which parts are true and from God and which parts are simply the prophets faulty ideas. Most of what can be verified or falsified is proven to be false, but you are still going to trust that the non-falsifiable parts are true? I would never trust the statements of a man that I could not verify, if almost all of his statements that I could verify are wrong.

Now, people want to make a big deal about the things Joseph got right. They want to claim that there is no way that he could have gotten those things right without true revelation from God. And that is why they prefer the philosophies of men mingled with scripture version of revelation over the alternative of no revelation. I have yet to see or hear of anything Joseph or any of his followers ever did that was so unlikely to happen without metaphysical help, that one simply must conclude real revelation exists. I already shot down the Civil War prophecy handily by looking at the news of the both prior to the day he made his prophecy. What else have you got?

To me there is no reason to even suspect Joseph had access to anything supernatural or metaphysical. And being that he is so wrong even when creating sacred scripture on facts that are verifiable, why would I ever consider that he was a true prophet? So far, I have only shown that Joseph was incorrect. Now that leaves two possibilities, either he was sincere, but mistaken, or he knew he was pulling a fast one over everyone. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that he knowingly deceived us all and abused his power and the trust of the people. And that makes me mad.

Huff, James, and company,
Congratulation on your wisdom and powerful logic. I guess you have dern proved us believin' Mormons is delusional. I bow to your intellect. Congratulations.

If the tone of your responses is any indication this powerful logic has you well on your way to a happier, more fulfilling life. Already you are engaged in careful study of history for the purpose of proving Joseph Smith a fraud, ridiculing, ad-hominem attacks, and a general sarcastic derisive tone that leaves me truly moved. I can tell you all live happy and fulfilled lives.

God Blees

Thankful / HM

One of the things I liked best about Mormonism when i was an active LDS

was that the Church didn't go in big for all that Hell stuff, like I understood the Catholics and fundamentalist born agina to do.

Maybe it was there and I repressed it
but i didn't feel liek I had to be a good mormon
in order to Avoid Hell.

I felt like I had to be a good mormon to reach the highest level of heaven.

Kind of like the Army:
be all that you can be.

So, do you see more emphasis on Hell in the Church than I do?

Hi again Betty,

You are a kind kind woman to hang in there with me and try to understand my musings -

Tis a strange and random thing to be here defending LDS and my own views on hell of all things -- thanks for being willing to engage me!

huff
a stupid girl question.
where do i find your email address on your
"Easy..." site?

Huff you Knucklehead

i am in awe of your wisdom and thoroughness (and fair-mindedness) (same for Phaedrus).

John: I think Huff's post shows exactly what I mean. If one is open to alternative explanations and goes through a rational and open-minded thought process that includes looking at the evidence,

one will find the S Carolina 1828 and 1832 points that Huff cited.

It is an incredibly more reasoned explanation that Smith reacted to those events in formulating his Revelation than that God told him about it.

When confronted with two possible explanations, tend to favor the one that does not require one to suspend one's rational faculties.

If one relies for truth-verification on one's Chest-Burning, there is no decision criterion when my Burning conflicts with the Burning of my Brother Mohammed.

And at that point it is only denial or arrogance that makes one believe one has the Truth.

Hell on Earth

Ok Hm, i *think* your point is penetrating my scull.

Your Good Heart Believes in redemption, even for hardened criminals and therefore the rest of us.

Yes, that I believe in, and I think people like you help people achieve it.

I do certainly believe in "Hell on Earth," as a meaningful figure of speech and reality experienced by humans.

I think i am reacting to the conception of a God who seems to take pleasure (or revenge) in imposing that Hell on humans, either in this life or in a next, if there is one.

I see your goodness in taking pleasure in helping the criminal escape his hell. That I applaud you for.

If I were a God=believer I would much more likely want to believe in a compassionate Jesus than a vengeful Old Testament Yhwh.

That is the kind of God-ness I want to emphasize.

Huff, John D, and James:

Not much time this week, and what time I have had has been spent slugging it out in defense of science over on the jacoby thread, but wanted to tell you that I am enjoying reading y'alls back and forth. Huff, glad to see that you returned to the BOA theme, as I agree that this is a mortal blow to JS's credibility. You can make some mistakes and get away with it, but this included obvious fraud and deception, not something a "holy man" can easily sidestep.

John, as always I am impressed by your nimbleness, but find myself wondering how many raindrops must one avoid before admitting that the roof is leaking? Following in James' path, but without his patience, let me ask this question: Is there any fact that, if verified sufficient to your tastes, would result in your abandoning your belief that JS was who he claimed he was?

A Bristish scientist was once asked, "What single fact would cause you to abandon your belief in natural selection? His reply? "Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian." That answer succinctly captures the integrity of science as a "truth-detector." The scientist's reaction reveals that truth outweighs any cherished notion.

John, I hope you realize that I do not ask you this with any disrespect intended. I am merely interested in your perspective on the question.

This a quick note on the Civil War prophecy. This comes from: http://www.lds-mormon.com/civilwar.shtml

"Along the same lines, I think it is quite clear from historical records that unrest was already brewing regarding slavery in Joseph Smith's time. Joseph Smith made his South Carolina "revelation" (D&C 87) on December 25, 1832.

Do you think that the nullification convention held in November 1832 by South Carolina may have had an influence on Joseph Smith's prediction? I think so.

In November 1832 a South Carolina delegation defiantly nullified the federal 1828 and 1832 tarriffs. South Carolina immediately prepared for a military showdown with the federal government. South Carolina regiments were organized and volunteers were gathered together to fight the federal government. The issue was temporarily diffused with the compromise of 1833, but the tension was only postponed. (Secret and Sacred, The Diaries of James Hummond, a Southern Slaveholder, edited by Carol Bleser, Oxford University Press, 1988).

So history speaks to us quite clearly. Joseph Smith's so called revelation was made on the heals of one of the biggest signs to the country that a civil war was evident. A State within the Union had nullified federal law and even prepared its people for war against the Union. Do Mormons consider this information when reviewing Doctrine and Covenants 87? I think not."

scratch the anti social part and replace with habitual criminal

Hi Betty,

If hypothetically an anti-social can experience an excruciating hell but then come out of it a new man you would be comfortable entertaining for dinner -- would you still deem God a sadist?

That is the type of hypothetical I am postulating in my post.

What do you think?

love,

HM

Thankful

Thanks for your illuminating and heartfelt response.

Your story has many aspects. For instance, many criminals are sociopaths who have no capacity to feel empathy for the pain of others, and the way we deal with them is problematic (I would tend to favor :lock them up and throw away the key because they will always be a danger to others).

I still believe the D&C quote you gave us is Sadistic, and paints a picture of a reprehensible God, much like the God of the Old Testament.

You are of course free to disagree.

The sayings and behavior attributed to Jesus I find much more congenial, and in a very different vein from
"10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! FOR , BEHOLD, I AM ENDLESS, AND THE PUNISHMENT WHICH IS GIVEN FROM MY HAND IS ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, FOR ENDLESS IS MY NAME. Wherefore—

That could well have come from a Mafia Crime Boss.

JD
You have demonstrated by quoting Smith's Civil War prophecy that it has "content."

If one was a believer back then, one took Smith on faith and acted on his prophecy. Sometimes the believers won, and sometimes they lost, following this decision-criterion. The statistician would ask whether Smith did significantly better than chance (coin flips).

If one is a rationalist, one will evaluate alternative explanations for Smith's accuracy.
1. God revealed this to him
2. He made a lucky guess
3. He was fairly astute in political terma and made an educated prediction.
(Smith did run for President, didn't he?).

The rationalist would tend towards 2 or 3, since neither explanatin is outlandish, and #1 is an extraordinary explanation. Many predicted War. South Carolina was a good call but not a 1,000 to one bet.

Rather than saying Smith's prophecies were without content then,
I would say that a rational man would not be convinced that he should use Smith's prophecies as a guide to action.
My objection to your reasoning was to your implication that the fact that Smith made his No-2nd coming prophecy to Mormons rather than to the world had any effect on the Truth-Value and reliability of his prophecy.

Hi Betty,

I'll take this as voice of compassionate concern from an old friend ;)

Your remarks on hell reminded me of my stint working with male domestic violence perpetrators some years ago. They had been court ordered to complete anger management classes and completion was the get out of jail card.

The ticket to begin the class was a copy given to myself of the arresting officer's report which detailed their crime including statements by the their victim as to what had happened. You can imagine how helpful this would be when they are spinning a much different story to obscure or minimize their behaviors backing one another up and blaming their victims.

As you might imagine, they were a lovely bunch especially at the beginning -- often pure narcissism at it’s finest.

The most poignant day in that class was always when they were required to read aloud an assignment that they had been given to complete the week prior entitled “Victim Empathy.”

This assignment gave them detailed instructions to imagine and then write about the incident of their abuse as if they were in fact their victim -- her thoughts, her feelings, her screaming and trying to get away, her aftermath in trying to put her life back together, the affect on children and extended family, and on and on. -- everything from her perspective from beginning to “end” written in the first person.

There were some who avoided coming to this day of the course and had to wait until we did it again to complete it. It was hard to get a volunteer to start. As they read these assignments out loud, sadly some still remained sterile, cold and unaffected but there were also others who were the opposite -- some became quite choked up, needed pauses to collect themselves and really struggled to get through it wiping away or pushing back tears.

The inhumanity of their behaviors seemed to stare them in the face and though it was obviously painful, for such I always thought this was one of the most therapeutic things we did.

Such men often expressed gratitude for the course when it was over and felt that they had become better men with a greater understanding of their wrongs and new skills to deal with conflict. There are some now that I would not mind having as my neighbors or even my friends.

But when the course was over, there were others -- those men that remained unaffected, cold and hostile or so smooth and slimy that I wished they would have to take the class again or actually go to jail until they had really come to grips with the inhumanity of their behavior. Not because I’m a sadist but because I think that they themselves as well as their friends, families and wider community would be much better off if they really got it down deep and made genuine personal change.

Although I know there’s no amount of jail time or anger management that can “make” them change, I sure wished their was for the sake of all. I think of hell and buffetings of Satan for them as being something like a very long day in intensive Victim Empathy that lasts until the person gets it. I think of God as Isaiah called him -- as a “Wonderful Counselor” much better than me.

For myself, I’ve found repentance initially sometimes very painful as well but in the end very therapeutic -- coming eventually to a great sense of peace with myself and with others and with God.

D & C 19 which I have quoted says its more painful in the hereafter to experience hell than if we utilize the atonement in which the Lord has already suffered for our sins and is available to us now.

I believe God has sacrificed himself for you and I, he is not a sadist, but our Savior

Love,

HM

Home work for you too...

In all honesty these are still open questions for me, with no easy answer. But in one text we have four future details descibed as followed, and I paste:

Beginning of the Civil War and place (somewhat compelling)

The South calling on Great Britain (More compelling)

Slaves being marshaled for war (also compelling)

World war alliances (also compelling)

Can any one find a non-Biblical profecy that *in a single text* describes four future events to such exactness?

I am not saying it is not possible. I think anyone can profecy, I am really just curious; I do not know.

"To think it remarkable that ANYONE prediceted a Civil War, even if they included S Carolina, is really not very lucid thinking."

Look what I put in parenthesis in my post about the prophecy.

Labling my thoughts "mental gymnastics" seems a bit too ad-homineim for me. I'll get back to your question tonight, I have work now.

love ya John
but you sure seem to be doing Mental Gymnastics to me. My opinion, of course, but the opinion of a Philosophy major at a good college etc.

Look at Smith's (or anyone else's) prophesies from the perspective of the time they were made rather than in hindssight.

If, say, Smith (or Jeanne Dixon in Betty's example) makes 50 prophesies in the year 1832,
which ones can you rely on as true and act on as fact?

If, as it turned out, some are proved right and many are proved wrong, those prophesies are no better a guide to action than flipping a coin.

Thus, no good information is contained in them.

To think it remarkable that ANYONE prediceted a Civil War, even if they included S Carolina, is really not very lucid thinking.

Conclusion: in real time, when confronted by a prophecy from Joseph Smith or Jeanne Dixon, don't bet the farm on it. It's information value is negative.

Prophecies

Can anyone explain why
The Prophecies of Religious People like J Smith
should be
taken more seriously
than the
Astrological Predictions
of Jeanne Dixon et al.

Ms Dixon often makes predictions on political and world events.

And I am sure that sometimes she is right.

Oiuja boards are sometimes correct prophesiers.

Are there any guidelines to evaluating information other than feelings of assurance?

"If you gave that explanation to the 6 billion non-mormons in the world, those with an IQ over 100 would consider those Mormons to be unbelievably delusional/gullible,"

It was not given to 6 Billion people, it was given to Mormons.

Besides, what do 6 Billion people know?

Like I said, naysayers have their apologists and, I might add, they make good defense attorneys.

At the end of the civil war, many details in Smith's war prophecy had not occured, some did in the 20th century and the final ones have yet to happen. So be ready and look for the signs of the times James :)

I don't think the prophecy fulfillment proves Smith right, but it does counter your claim that his prophecies are meaningless and without content.

I think this one speaks for itself.

Corrected Version of James's post above

John - in response to my
"is not Useful information unless one is planning for it's ACTUALLY coming in 10 years."

you note
"Exactly, for early Mormons it was useful."

If you gave that explanation to the 6 billion non-mormons in the world, those with an IQ over 100 would consider those Mormons to be unbelievably delusional/gullible,

and they would consider the information to be useless (and laughable).

james

John - you note
"is not Useful information unless one is planning for it's ACTUALLY coming in 10 years."

If you gave that explanation to the 6 billion non-mormons in the world, those with an IQ over 100 would consider those Mormons to be unbelievably delusional/gullible,

and they would consider the information to be useless (and laughable).

Smith's Prophecies

I am reading the Guns of August. The book details many prophecies of WWI in the 40 years leading up to it.

None of the seers claimed God's inspiration.

Nice that Smith predicted the Civil War.

Herewith one view of that:
"James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom offers a summary of conditions prior to the Civil War that contributed to it and exacerbated tensions. Even prior to Smith's prophecy, it would not have been difficult to foresee a war coming. McPherson notes that there were a number of expected dividing lines as the country grew in the period from 1800-1850 (rich/poor, Catholic/Protestant, rural/urban), but the "greatest danger to American survival" at this stage was the question of slavery. Why? Because slavery was associated with competing ideals that just happened to also have geographic associations."

BTW, 3/4 of the WWI prophecies were wrong. Many of Smith's prophecies were wrong. Guessing that a Civil War is notable, but admits of many other less tortuous explanations than God's revelation.

"is not Useful information unless one is planning for it's ACTUALLY coming in 10 years."

Exactly, for early Mormons it was useful.

thanks John

this is not a request for an Apologetic,
but
a Value Judgement about a piece of information.

To predict that
"Something (the Second Coming") is NOT going to happen"
in addition to being mind-bending (it is like my predicting "the Prophecy you believe that the Sun and the Moon are going to merge into one body in 10 years is Not Going to happen")

is not Useful information unless one is planning for it's ACTUALLY coming in 10 years.

Oops: I guess that kind of thing is what 40% of the American Public believe.

But it seems to me that
Prophesying that an event that is extremely unlikely in the first place
is not going to happen in 10 years
is pretty dubiously valuable information.

Correction:

I said:

"think the loose ends of both the new revelation hypothesis and no revelation (con man) hypothesis are outlined well in"

What I meant to say was:

think the loose ends of both the calvanist revelation hypothesis and no revelation (con man) hypothesis are outlined well in...

Now James I suppose we are back on track with talk of Prophesy. I think the revelation Joseph received on the second coming did provide useful information. Many saints thought the 2nd coming would come within a decade. The revelation communicated that it would not come that soon. Useful information as far as I am concerned.

Prophecy...

Now the naysayers have their apologists to explain away Mormon evidence I know, but despite those who nit pick the language about timing, the following revelation does foretell in a compelling fashion historical details of the 19th and 20th century.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

Details:

Beginning of the Civil War and place (somewhat compelling)

The South calling on Great Britain (More compelling)

Slaves being marshaled for war (also compelling)

World war alliances (also compelling)

This does not read like a text book, but it does provide information about future states of affairs unknown in 1832. Not a meaningless prophecy by any means.

In all honesty Huff, I have never read Blake Ostler. If the “expansion hypothesis” is what I think it is, it is a Mormon fundamental, not just the invention of one Mormon Apologist.

I think the loose ends of both the new revelation hypothesis and no revelation (con man) hypothesis are outlined well in

By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion

by Terryl L. Givens, Oxford University Press

If this is going to turn into to a polemics/apologetic crusade I wish a real apologist would step in and provide the Mormon side. For I am just one man with a religious opinion and a family to feed. I will grow tired of this after a while.

Prophecies Have No Content
They Tell Us Nothing of Use

There is no instance
in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY

where a prophecy,
in the rare instances where it amenable to verification or falsification

has been shown to have validity.

This applies whether the prophecy is made by
Joseph Smith,
Nancy Reagan's astrologer,
or the Apocaplytic Seer.

If believing in Smith's prophecies can't be defined as Delusional Ideation

it certainly shares many of the characteristics of a Paranoid Schizophenic's "mental gymnastics" that keep her convinced that the voices she hears in her head are messages she should heed.

John, I can't help but suspect that your demurral regarding
Mutually Exclusive Faith-Based Beliefs
of Catholics and Mormons (and Muslims and ...ad infinatum)
is because the mental gymnastics to resulve this unresolvable problem would take infinite space and time. You have a capacious mind, but no-one's is that capacious (except maybe a group of 12 Jesuits).

John D. the First,

Ahh, you buy into Blake Ostler's Expansion Hypothesis I see. I will post more when I have time. I had suspected that earlier by some of your comments in the prejudice thread.

Das Maedchen:

I have read those verses many times. I am very fluent in Mormonism and all of its scriptures. I taught at the MTC for almost 3 years, am a BYU grad, was a counselor in a Bishopric, attended institute and seminary, and studied "the gospel" a lot on my own. I find that fudge factor that you pointed out to be comparable to what that guy does who claims to speak for dead people when he says someone is trying to speak to me, their name starts with a "d" or a "b" and they lost someone close to them. Joseph tries to say something impressive, but at the same time makes it non-falsifiable, so in effect he said nothing at all. But, you are right, I cannot pin him down on that prophecy. Or, even on all those quotes taken together. As I said when I introduced them, there are faith preserving ways to interpret them so I won't even try to defend that they are false prophecies against the apologetics.

We, ex-Mormons, refer to all of these outrageous and unlikely apologetic interpretations as mental gymnastics. And once you finally realize that Joseph was just a con man, it feels so good to not have to keep contorting your brain to find some way to avoid the conclusion that Joseph was a fraud. You don't even realize what a burden it is until you are able to let it go and acknowledge the direction of the preponderence of the evidence. Apologists make great defense attorneys. But, this jury member ain't buying it anymore.

In science a hypothesis can change as new evidence arrives. Many critics of evolution demonstrate that the specifics of the theory have changed over time. They think that the fact that many loose ends are not tied up is enough to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Likewise, my hypothesis concerning Joseph Smith changes as I get new evidence. The only thing this Huff's evidence contradicts is a Calvinist view of revelation, not dialictic revelation outlined in Mormon scriptures. For those who hold to the-

Calvinist revelation or No revelation dichotomy, there is falsification, but indeed these are not the only options.

To me, dialectic revelation makes more sense due to my understanding of human nature, Mormon scripture and the history of God.

The no revelation hypothesis has as many loose ends as the Calvanist revelation hypothesis. I think the dialectic revelation hypothesis has the least loose ends.

Many theological claims are unfalsifiable because the nature of the phenomena under question is not precisely defined. Such is the case with revelation. Your evidence contradicts your definition, but not all definitions; including mine.

As for your question James, it is a complex one. I may address it, but it would require a long treatment. If it was more relavent to the thread overall, I might do it. In other words, ask me later.

Hueffenhardt:
I realize I am a little late to respond, and I apologize if someone has already pointed this out, but in regards to your first post on this thread regarding the unfulfilled prophesies of the second coming, I found the following in section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and was wondering if you read this before you made your post.
"14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face."
Therefore Joseph Smith (at least in this case) did not claim that the Second Coming would take place in his lifetime, He states that he is unable to determine whether the revelation meant the beginning of the millennium, a vision, or his seeing Christ after his death.

JOhn D

I forgot, you don't believe in independent observors.

So change that part of the question to

How would/should my friend Namba Patal who is a buddhist and doesn't know anything about catholics or Mormons evaluate our truth claims.

Thankful writes
"10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! FOR , BEHOLD, I AM ENDLESS, AND THE PUNISHMENT WHICH IS GIVEN FROM MY HAND IS ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, FOR ENDLESS IS MY NAME. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

What a SADIST this God is.

I am Thankful I don't believe in him.

this is the God that Hueff accurately described as evil and hateful and that he didn't want anything to do with.

Thankful: liberate yourself from this sado-masochistic relationship.

love
betty

Theological Apologetics for John and Hef

Axiom: a belief that does not depend on, and often ignores, evidence
cannot be changed by an appeal to evidence.

John D, you and other believers have Faith because you have Faith. It "feels" like the right thing to do.

Rational people like Hueff can see the myriad contradictions and credibility-stretching claims in Mormon doctrine, and finally say when they confront that final straw BoA, "there is no justification for believing this."

But Hef can't convince you John. When a belief does not respond to evidence, one can always rationalize new information that is seemingly contradictory.

Theological Final Exam Question for you, John:
If YOU are convinced BY YOUR FAITH that the revelations of Smith are "true" and so is the BoA

and I, a good Catholic, am convinced by my Faith that Smith was a Charlatan and that the BoA is a bunch of Bunk,

how would an independent observer evaluate our Truth Claims?

And while we are at it, can God make a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it?

Hi John M. (continued),

Here’s is the link again to section 76 in the Doctrine and Covenants that details the 3 degrees of glory or heaven if you’d like to read it in full. The introduction talks a bit about the circumstances in which the revelation was received and then towards the beginning of the passages, it talks about sons of perdition before going on to talk about the 3 degrees of glory.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76

I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to clarify

Hi John M,

Such is the difficulty of posting so many passages, my apologies. Here’s a readers digest version - I put some things in capitals since I can’t bold them - These verses basically define what God did and did not mean be using the words endless or eternal punishment. The idea is that because God himself is endless and eternal, hell may also be referred to as endless/eternal however, the passage also points out that this does not mean that there is no end to hell. Hopefully that clarifies more.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, IT IS NOT WRITTEN THAT THERE SHALL BE NO END TO TORMENT, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! FOR , BEHOLD, I AM ENDLESS, AND THE PUNISHMENT WHICH IS GIVEN FROM MY HAND IS ENDLESS PUNISHMENT, FOR ENDLESS IS MY NAME. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

To My Staunch Catholic Friends

Sorry, did not mean to offend you individuals.

My criticisms of the Catholic Church may offend, but I do try to make them judiciously. For instance, Catholic treatment of Gays is awful, but no worse than Mormons or Muslims or many other sects. There is no justification for singling out Catholics there, though the church should be included in the "bad group."

I KNOW people don't pay penances literally. People do however contribute actual money. I was using Panance Metaphorically.

We agree the morality bar in the CC is set high. You think God did it. i think the Church did it. We both have the same facts and we probably agree on them. Our difference is interpretation.

Again, the Catholic Church is not alone in this practice. it is better than most, but it has had more practice than most.

To say there is no "psychological manipulation" in the Catholic Church (or most others) is hopelessly naive, with all due respect.

Love the Catholic, don't always love the Church.

I grew up in a dominant Catholic town arguing theology with my Catholic friends for years, so I am not as ignorant as you may think. I may be as stupid as you think.

Dave,

Since the subject here is Mormon eschatology, I suppose the truth or falsehood of Mormonism is related. I does seem like a bit of a hijacking for your agenda.

I don't think that anything on that site is "evidence against a revelation" unless you assume that revelation cannot also include much from the psych and imagination of God's instrument. I think that necessarily much of both Joseph and God was put into his revelations. Like you have shown, even Biblical revelation cannot be accepted if you do not accept that God worked through ideas and concepts readily available in the social environment of Prophets.

The Mormon veiw of revelation outlined in D&C 9:8 supports this view, outlining a study it out in your mind process involved in the process of revelation.

So if both Joseph and God are put into the revelations, we should expect some anachronism and intertwining of folk knowledge into the revelations.

John M.:

The only thing that I carried with me from my disenchantment with Mormonism into by investigation into the Bible was the fact that the experiences I previously interpreted as coming from the Holy Spirit, could not be relied on to ascertain the truthfulness of anything, no more than any other emotion reliably identifies the truth. In all other ways, I evaluated the truthfulness of the Bible on its own merits.

You are correct that for thousands of years the text of the Bible has remained virtually unchanged. The Dead Sea scrolls being but one piece of evidence of that. But, preservation implies nothing about whether the theological claims are true. We have ancient documents containing the myths of the Greeks and the Egyptians and the Sumerians. That does not make their beliefs true.

Sorry, but you are wrong about the books of the Bible being written and distributed while living witnesses were around. The only exception being the epistles. Virtually all of the Old Testament was written after the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. Babylonian mythology made it into the first several chapters of Genesis. The Gospels were written at the very end of the first century, after the destruction of Jerusalem and after the original apostles died. There are numerous evidences that go beyond the scope of what I want to discuss here.

The fact that archaeologists find that Biblical names and places exist, again says nothing about whether the theology is true. Denmark is mentioned in the play "Hamlet" does that mean that we must conclude that the story is a historical reality?

The theology is no where near consistent throughout the Bible. Frankly, the God of the Old Testament is so evil and whimsical that I would want nothing to do with him even if he did exist.

But, I would like to focus on Mormonism on this forum.

For (bouncing) Betty: You posted the same thing on the other web page regarding Catholics. I've corrected you once before. Rise above yourself and cease posting the same erroneous tripe bashing Catholics.

1. The bar of morality and truth *IS* set high as it should be. Truth is frequently NOT apparent to the five senses.

2. Catholics are free to (and do) leave the church at any time. There is NO "obvious psychological manipulation" as you state. Moreover, many Catholics are, unfortunately, Cafeteria Catholics.

3. Penance is not paid for as you state. Period.

You obviously do not know or understand Catholicism. It would be best to refrain from opining on it until you do.

Hi, Thankful.

The passage you listed did nothing to explain where temporary hell and three levels of heaven originated. That passage repeatedly uses the words 'eternal' and 'endless'.

Many of the doctrines of Smith changed drastically toward the end of his life. But, they began, with this one as an example, relatively close to the Bible.

The verses I posted are clear. How can you deny them?

Hueffenhardt:
It is tragic that your disenchantment with unbelievable Mormon doctrines led you so far so as to believe that God Himself does not exist.

The Bible is not at all like the BoM. We have many, many old copies, in the original languages, which have not changed in meaning in all these years. So, there is no 'evolving' as in Mormonism. Also, the books of the Bible were all written and distributed while living witnesses were still around. They could have refuted falsehoods in those books, and they historically accepted them wholeheartedly and were willing to die for their faith. Modern archaeology continues to find evidence in support of Bible names, places and events, unlike the BoM. Finally, the theology is consistent in the Bible, from start to finish.

Many ex-Mo's have come to know the True Jesus. Here is one website:
www.saintsalive.com

John D.,

Yes, that site recommendation was only meant as a starting place. It does not present all of the information necessary to rule out all possible apologetic explanations.

In fact, all that site does is show evidence for why the BoA is not a translation. It does not touch upon the evidence against it being a revelation. Here is the next step: http://tinyurl.com/349hu5

That is just chapter 8 and deals with the text itself: anachronisms and plagiarisms. But, I would invite you to read all of the chapters. It is not long and a lot of it covers the same information as the first link, but with more photographs so that the reader can better understand what is being explained. Pay special attention to the reuse of Egyptian characters in Chapter 7; we will come back to that later.

Pete:
I am glad that you asked the question. Please keep asking those questions and searching for the answers. Too many people accept what they are told and put any unresolved concerns on a figurative shelf and never fully investigate them.

What you wrote in your post is the standard answer that Bishops, Institute teachers, etc, give members when this issue comes up. The only problem is that it is not true. Back in the 1800's, there were many Mason's who believed their signs and tokens were passed down to them, generation after generation from the days of King Solomon, but this cannot be.

Modern Free Masonry got its start in 1717. Now, some people want to quabble about this date and speak of the organizations that preceded masonry. But, even taking all of that into consideration, the deepest origins of free masonry cannot be before the mid 1200's in Europe. However, people in the 1800's did not know that, so many believed that their signs and tokens really did go back to King Solomon. Now, some people want to claim that the Christian Crusaders - the Knights Templar - while they lived in the caves underneath the temple mount discovered these signs and tokens, etc, but the evidence does not support that. In all likelihood, during the construction boom of the Renaissance, brick masons traveled from city to city looking for work building cathedrals and such. In lieu of paperwork to prove their credentials to the foremen, they may have used secret handshakes to prove that they were in fact master masons, etc.

So, unless God just put into the minds of some random European craftsmen these sacred signs and tokens that are supposed to be eternal and allow us to pass the angels in heaven, then these signs do not have heavenly origins.

In Masonry, the candidate learns the legend of Hiram Abiff and the Three Ruffians. With each advancement the candidate learns more of the myth and learns tokens that pertain to different parts of the story. Joseph Smith replaced the guiding legend with a tale about the creation and the garden of Eden, the same tale as in the scriptures, but he elaborates on it, adding dialogue to teach ideas he had. So there is next to no similarity in the central myths of the Masonic and LDS temples.

However, since Joseph and his cohort, believed that the signs and tokens dated back to Solomon's temple and thus were ancient, he dreamed that he would restore the proper context, but he had to keep the tokens and penalties pretty much unchanged. Now the modern temple endowment is very different from the one Joseph gave and Brigham continued. Many of the similarities to the Masonic ceremony has been taken out. For example, all of the penalties are gone, like cutting one's throat or disembowelling, etc. If you really investigate the old LDS signs, tokens, and penalties, and compare them to the 19th century Masonic ones, you will see that it is obvious Joseph just took them and gave them new context.

Interestingly, the name of the last token in the Masonic tradition is unknown even to them and they wait for it to be restored. To someone like Joseph, that is an invitation he cannot pass up. And so we have the long and cumbersome name that one gets at the veil today because he wanted to be the special one that restored the lost name. This supposedly would impress the members who were masons that became endowed.

There is nothing in the Bible that suggests Solomon's temple had anything like an LDS endowment or sealings, etc. The High Priest held the Aaronic Priesthood, not the Melchezidek which is supposedly necessary for endowments, etc, especially the later part of the endowment in which the signs and tokens of the Melchezidek priesthood are given. No, Jewish temples were used for sacrifices and to hold the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, did Joseph just use existing handshakes and combine them with a revelation from God to create a ritual God would approve of to teach his people. That is possible, but that would mean that these signs and tokens could not be the ones given to Adam, nor can they be the same as those used on other worlds, etc. You see there is a faith saving interpretation, different from the orthodox understanding, but still doable to save one's faith in the Church. However, there is no such escape when one fully understands the Book of Abraham.

Hi Dave/ Heuff,

I followed the link. Interesting stuff there, but nothing I found to be terribly compelling, primarily because of my understanding of the process of revelation.

I agree with you that every Mormon should decide for his or herself. Since your webpage does not cover the Mormon side very indepth, I thought I would include a link as well:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai125.html

Huff,

Didn't the masons take their symbols from Solomon's temple? Don't Mormon's believe that their temple symbols also were patterned after Solomon's temple? Maybe that is why they are compared or similiar.

I don't think you are going to get very far with Mormons arguing about Jesus' teachings on hell or the interplay of omniscience and free will. At least it did not work for me when I was a true believing Mormon.

Even the stuff that I have mentioned thus far on this forum (failed prophecies, prejudice, discrimination against women and gays) would not have had any effect on my beliefs. I found a way to be ok with Joseph's hiding his plural marriages from Emma, marrying other men's wives and his own teenage foster daughters. I found a way to be ok with Joseph's involvement with magic, his repurposing Masonic signs and tokens into the endowment, his so-called lying for the Lord, his anger problems and physically assaulting and threatening others. I was ok with Joseph's evolving first vision stories, and false recreations of early church history. I find a way to defend against the mounting evidence against the Book of Mormon.

How could I be ok with all of that? Because if one looks hard enough, one can always find some remote possibility, however improbable, that would allow Joseph to escape serious condemnation. And as a believer, I would always give Joseph the benefit of every doubt. I wanted to believe him and I had had many spiritual experiences that I interpreted as God telling me that the Church was true.

What finally caused me to quit giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt? A critically important case for which there was no doubt to give Joseph the benefit of - no possibility however remote that Joseph was doing the work of God. A case so solid that even the best attempts by the brightest and most informed apologists cannot create reasonable doubt. Uninformed members will believe the apologetic explanations. But, when one knows and is honest with all the evidence, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that Joseph was a con-man.

The case is the Book of Abraham. This is supposed to be scripture - the word of God. If there was ever a time when Joseph was acting as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and in tune with the Holy Spirit, it was then. And if one can show that this work was a fraud, it undermines everything. After one knows that this scripture is pure fiction, there is no need to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt. Then, one can look at the balance of the evidence and see that the weight of the evidence is against the Book of Mormon, and the temple, and the First Vision, etc. Everything crashes. Futhermore, since I believed that the Spirit had told me the BoA was true, I was forced to rethink what those feelings might mean and where they are really coming from. One thing is for sure, the Spirit is not a reliable tool for identifying what is true. And once that is gone and one looks into the criticism of the Bible and apologetics, one realizes that in all likelihood, the God of Abraham is fictional, too.

The Book of Abraham is the single most important thing a Mormon can study. And it is way more serious than just not being a true translation, it almost certainly isn't even a revelation and the evidence can show it. And I firmly believe that Joseph knew he was creating a fraud. He was a con-man in Palmyra, he conned Josiah Stowell in Pennsylvania, he conned the investors in the Kirtland Safety Society, he conned all of us with the BoA, and he pulled the wool over Emma's eyes by hiding his plural marriages from her. I see a clear pattern of behavior. But, let every Mormon decide for his or herself. But, that cannot be done if one does not know all that is available about the BoA, both anti and apologetic.

Start here: http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/abraham.html

James,

Thank you for your nice words about my unanswered question and the CK.

It appears you are abiding by the highest level of morality and setting a good example for the rest of us :)

Sorry - I forgot to take out a lot of foot notes like in verses 4 & 5

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my cleft hand.

I see more - try to ignore the random a b c's in front of words.

My apologies

John M.,

...LDS try to convert others because there are many distinct differences between each of the 3 kingdoms.

We believe it is only in the highest kingdom -- the celestial kingdom that we are sealed to our families forever, that we are able to dwell with God the Father and Jesus Christ, that we are able to recieve of his fullness -- all that he hath and to ulimately become like him.

We also believe it is only in the celestial kingdom that the Zion that is promised and foretold of in the Bible, will be built as well.

Also we try to convert others naturally because we do not want others to suffer in hell at all. No one need suffer if each will utilize Christ's atonement and repent.

I hope that clarifies a bit more. I'm in a bit of a hurry to rush out the door now and won't be able to write back till tommorrow but I think you raise valid concerns given our differing perspectives.

John D

Just as I suspected@@!!!
You ARE a theologian.

But I love you anyway.

I presume from your artful post that you think it enough to pose what I consider very interesting questions, without having to give your answers.

I must say:
I consider the Mormons much more enlightened because of their lightening of fundamentalist FEAR OF HELL practices.

The Mormons do the Carrot approach: if you are good, you get to be with your family in heaven forever. (and strong implication: if you aren't good, and don't do the temple ordinances, you lose your family forever - ao ir ia nOT ALL swettness and light).

HI John M.,

Here is a qoute from Doctrine and Covenants Section 19 in which LDS beleive the Lord reveals and explains a bit more about hell:

1 I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.

2 I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me—having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself—

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

4 And surely every man must arepent or suffer, for I, God, am cendless.

5 Wherefore, I arevoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, bwailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my cleft hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written bendless ctorment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the amystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am bendless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for dEndless is my name. Wherefore—

11 aEternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the acommandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your bsufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered these things for all, that they might not bsuffer if they would crepent;

17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and afinished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have dtasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

Sorry. The previous anonymous post is mine.

Thankful wrote:
"As a LDS, I believe hell is more about being purged and purified of unrepented of sins to enable one to attain a place in one of God’s kingdoms rather than an ongoing punishment and damnation that lasts forever."

That may be a LDS teaching, but it is NOT biblical. Jesus referred to hell as a place "where the fire never goes out". (Mark 9:43) Quoting Isaiah, He also said that in hell "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48). "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)

The LDS denial of a literal, eternal hell leads to the doctrine of three levels of heaven - the celestial, the telestial and the terrestrial. Basically, everyone who ever lived ends up in a nice place.

So, if that is the LDS doctrine, why try to convert people? If I am going to a nice place forever, why should I become a Mormon?

And, how can you call yourself the church of Jesus Christ if you don't follow what He so clearly taught? He talked about hell a lot. He urged people to follow Him. He said He came to save the lost. Why did He die if hell is just a temporary refining process and everyone is going to a nice place anyway?

Hi agian Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

How can you be sure God has not spoken to those you have mentioned if he has his free will? Can we assume that he cannot speak to a man or a woman if he so desires?

I do agree with you in that God has free will (this is also LDS theology) but that this concept when understood in the context of eternal unchangible laws governing the universe, does indeed allow for God's ability to plan for the future and to make promises to the faithful about that future.

Just as I can plan to do something as simple as to heat water to a certain temperature so that it will result in that water boiling and then turning into gas, I believe God has a complex and complete understanding of the laws that govern the universe and the type of environment that will facilitate the growth of his children.

The even greater complexity of this formula is of course that each of us as individuals also have free will -- hence if we will adhere to the eternal laws set forth by God, we may reap the promised rewards. If do not, we will also reap accordingly.

I believe God can indeed plan for the outcomes he desires, can and does reveal them to prophets and to you and I when we sincerely seek his will and that each of us can use our free will to adhere to those eternal laws and commandments.

I also beleive that by so doing, we too can have surety in the ultimate outcomes of our choices that extend into the eternities. We too can even gain a knowledge and understanding of all of the intricacies of eternal laws governing the universe in thier completeness -- in thier entirety.

What do you think about this?

"In two sentences of profound common sense, Schillibeeckx has reduced the OT, NT, the Book of Mormon(etc.) and the Koran to mostly good but wishful thinking of many ancient scribes."

Considering the categories into which our books of scripture are normally placed by non-Mormons, I kind of like this one : )

Thanks Concerned.

I don't quite get why foreknowledge must equal determinism. Cannot knowledge of an event be independent of the causal force behind it?

Thankful,

I stopped at the word "prophet". There "ain't" such a person or persons.

As per as per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Christian theologian, God does not know the Future. From his book, Church: The Human Story of God,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And if God does not know the future, Mohammed, Jesus, Joseph Smith and Isaiah surely did not.

In two sentences of profound common sense, Schillibeeckx has reduced the OT, NT, the Book of Mormon(etc.) and the Koran to mostly good but wishful thinking of many ancient scribes.

This falls correctly in line with two of God's greatest dependent gifts, i.e. Free Will and Future.

Pause and think about it!!!

Warren Jeffs abides by the counsel in Doctrine and Covenants section 132, the LDS church does not. Jeffs is a criminal for obvious reasons but it would be inaccurate to say he was not following Joseph Smith.

The Plan, as detailed by Thankful, was described by Joseph Smith. The source of some of that plan is the Book of Abraham which is a topic for another thread.

(Please note the disclaimer that has been added at the beginning of these scripture that details the dates. The revelation was a retroactive revelation as Joseph Smith had already taken dozens of wives prior to having announced every having such a revelation to do so.)

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

Hi Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

That is quite a long name :) - do you have a nick name for short?

I like your questions -- I wish we had time to sit down and chat.

You asked "Who generates these new theology views of LDS?"

LDS beleive that this expanded understanding of the hereafter came by way of revelation from God to a modern day prophet, in this case Joseph Smith.

This and other modern revelations were compiled into a book that LDS now refer to as The Doctrine and Covenants.

We hold it as scripture in addition to the Bible, The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price.

This specific revelation can be read in full in Doctrine and Covenants section 76.

Here's a link to it if you'd like to read the revelation in full. It outlines the 3 degrees of glory and some of the differences between them.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it if you do have a chance to read it - especially given your name.

Hope to hear back from you later

Thankful,

Who generates these new theology views of LDS? e.g. "Additionally, LDS believe that heavenly salvation is offered on a continuum referred by LDS as the 3 degrees of glory which degrees are attained in correspondence to one’s choices for good or evil before the final judgment."

Why not four or five degrees of glory?? Very strange.

And do Mormons have a different Heaven than the rest of us? As per Somerville, there is no religion in Heaven.

Hi Ba’al,

You said

“Mr. Otterson writes "After the thousand years, there will be a last great battle between the forces of good and evil, in which evil will finally be vanquished."
OK, I know this is one of the oldest critiques there is for monotheist devotees of Abrahamic faiths, but why would an all-powerful and all-good deity wait so long to vanquish evil when so many innocent people suffer greatly right now? Why go through all that?
As a related question, why would an all-powerful and all-good deity be so concerned about what a bunch of trivial creatures such as ourselves BELIEVE, to the extent that this deity would punish to eternal torment those who do not believe the Right Things? A deity that thinks like that is far too human to be all-powerful or all-good. In fact, such a deity is so suspiciously human that one is led to think the whole thing is a human construct.
At some point the Earth will no longer be be able to sustain life as the sun burns itself out.”

I think you raise very good questions/“old critiques” which LDS would answer differently than our fellow Christians.

LDS refer to this “answer” as the Plan of Salvation or sometimes the Great Plan of Happiness.

For us, knowing more about this plan puts many aspects of this life into greater perspective and clarifies our purpose in being here and our concepts of the hereafter.

I’ll try to offer here a very general run down and would be happy to answer more specific questions if you are more curious to know more of the specifics of LDS theology.

The Plan of Salvation basically entails that all of mankind began as spirits who lived with God prior to coming to this earth. That we are each God’s spirit son’s and daughters. That as a loving Father, God most naturally wanted to give each of us all that he has and is because we are not simply his creatures but his precious children.

In a very general sense, LDS believe that God’s happiness -- his majesty and glory, is not necessarily what he has (although he certainly has all) but the what or who God is -- his perfect character and knowledge.

Though he might easily bestow a great riches or a kingdom upon his children, his perfect attributes of wisdom, kindness, love, patience, forbearance, etc. cannot simply be bestowed, they must be learned and developed out of our own free will.

So in this pre-earth life, God presented an opportunity to all of us to come to an earth to experience the opposites of good and evil as necessities to our learning and growth to become more like him.

The idea is that we cannot know the sweet without tasting some of the bitter and vice versa -- it is in these contrasting presences our choices and the choices of others can help us understand the qualitative differences between what it really is to choose good or evil. We get to see the outcomes, we get to experience the results -- it is somewhat of a laboratory for very awkward apprentice scientists experimenting with their very lives and the lives of others.

During this earth “stage of our development“ our general task then is to learn to distinguish between that which is good and that which is evil and to continually seek after and choose to do good. Our challenges and suffering in this life has the potential to be some of our greatest teachers and the challenges and suffering of others gives us opportunity to learn to serve and lift as God would.

In so doing, the idea again is that one may gradually develop godlike attributes.

Knowing that we are inexperienced and that each of us would naturally make mistakes, God our Father wisely also planned to send a savior, Jesus Christ, to atone for our sins so that we could choose to repent of the unwise choices we might make, so we would have a source of comfort to turn to in our sorrows while here and so we could draw upon Christ’s power to do good to our fellow men.

LDS believe that everyone who has ever been born on the face of this earth accepted this plan prior to their coming, accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and rejoiced in the opportunity to come to earth to learn and to prove themselves faithful to God.

Obviously, so many good people all over the world never hear what LDS would like to share while they are in this life.

In God’s perfect justice and mercy, we also believe that all men and women will at some point, in either this life or the next, have the opportunity to hear the gospel message in it’s fullness and to accept or reject it prior to any final judgment.

I imagine that those having passed on -- arriving in the hereafter, would in many cases be even more open to considering new ideas and their purpose beyond their life on this earth.

This is one main reason why LDS build temples for example -- therein we have begun the exhaustive work to perform baptisms by proxy for those who have died not having the gospel -- we believe that in what we refer to as the spirit world, such will have had an opportunity to be taught about God’s plan for them.

This gospel teaching in the spirit world as well as temple work is to continue through the millennium and to be completed prior to the final battle you and Bro Otterson have referred to -- of good vanquishing evil.

I believe it is at that time, that the teaching/learning purposes of having evil present to contrast good to facilitate our growth will no longer be necessary.

LDS also have an expanded doctrine of heaven and hell. We believe hell (the suffering of individuals who ultimately choose not to repent) will be excruciatingly painful yes, but also has an end and to such a kingdom of glory will ultimately be given.

As a LDS, I believe hell is more about being purged and purified of unrepented of sins to enable one to attain a place in one of God’s kingdoms rather than an ongoing punishment and damnation that lasts forever.

Additionally, LDS believe that heavenly salvation is offered on a continuum referred by LDS as the 3 degrees of glory which degrees are attained in correspondence to one’s choices for good or evil before the final judgment.

LDS believe that in the highest degree of glory or heaven, those who make and keep all temple covenants will be able to continue on fully in a progression to become like God. This again is what we believe God is working to achieve for all mankind.

Ultimately, it is our belief that it will be each persons individual choices to embrace all the good that is offered to us by God or to embrace varied degrees of that good, that will determine one’s end in how much they become like God and to what degree they receive all or some of the blessings in his kingdom.

There is really so much more that could be expounded on within this subject but hopefully this might help others understand LDS theology a bit better.

Best of Luck to you Ba’al if I don’t here back from you

"isolated mormon towns"

Here we go again.

Those people lead by Warren Jeffs are not members of the church of jesus christ of LDS because they choose to break the just laws of the land, and god specificaly does not allow that.

We mormons pray that they will wise up, repent, and return to the church of jesus christ of LDS. But, if they maintain their practices, they remain rejected from the LDS church.

Anyone woh thinks otherwise is misinformed.

Hueffe#%$&*%

So THAT's who you are.
No wonder your posts are so smart.

But your name is too long.

I'll call you Hef for short.

Mr. Otterson noted:

"The New Testament specifically teaches that no one knows the time, not even “the angels” (Matt. 24: 36. See also the Joseph Smith rendition of the same verses)."

First, Matt 24:36 was, as per many contemporary NT scholars, not a saying of the historical Jesus.
265-. Within this Generation: (1) Mark 13:28-32 = Matt 24:32-36 = Luke 21:29-33;

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb265.html

Second, angels i.e. "pretty wingy thingies" are mythical holdovers from ancient religions.

Fascinating info on angels and antiquity can be found at:

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/angels.html

"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

H:

I feel likewise. I made reference on the "gay" thread to your post on how the Book of Abraham was the catalyst for your leaving Mormonism. I thought that was an excellent piece and referred my favorite pachyderm and James to it as well. Gotta run to the office. More later.

Phaedrus,

I have really enjoyed your posts on this forum. I would not mind getting to know you better and get your ideas on a few things. Maybe I already know you, but by a different name. I used to go by Dave Sigmann. Anyway, feel free to post a message or email me through my blog.

Allah, Jesus, or Joseph?

James and Joy worship different Prophets.
Which one is correct.
How do we decide?

Don't be a philosopher and be rational about it!!

Be a democrat: there are a billion Muslims and 10 million Mormons.
Allah wins hands down.

Be a Chest Burner: I know James has as strong a burning in his chest
as
Joy does.

It's a tie. They are both right.
But...they can't both be right.
Now what does a philosopher do?

Allah Reigns on the Last Day

Joy: I know you are one of the Good Guys. Thanks for being one.

As a Good Guy, will you admit your mistake and correct your statement to say

"I look forward to the time when Allah reigns on Earth."

You don't believe that Jesus was a true Prophet and that Muhammed was a false prophet, do you?

There is no God but Allah.

James - you stated
"One primary effect that it has on many who so believe is that it reduces motivation both to appreciate the beauties of this world..."

I am not sure how you conclude that believing in the return of Christ to the earth somehow lessens a persons ability or motivation to appreciate the beauties that surround them. These ideas seem totally unrelated to me.

James - you also stated - "...and also to work to eliminate the injustices in this world, since they will be corrected in the next."

Otterson said:
"While the idea of a future millennial reign of Christ is a doctrinal reality for Mormons, most, I think, focus on trying to live the best lives they can without being fixated on the “end times.”

I have to say that I look forward to the time when Christ reigns on the earth. I believe so fully in His perfect justice and His perfect mercy.

But I also believe that for me to be there with Him - as I stated earlier - as one of the 'good guys' , I HAVE to do the things now that are good. I have to become the kind of person that is working to make my world and my community a better place. I have to do good to those around me.

If, as a Mormon, a person thinks differently and believes that they can just let it all be 'worked out in the next life', they are missing the point of this life completely.

"This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God. This life is time for men to perform their labors."

Phaedrus: Much Too Lucid Again!!

Why do so few comment, as you just did, on the obvious psychological manipulation of all religions in order to enforce compliance and keep
that tithing coming? (remember "follow the money""?

Two of hundreds of examples:

=Catholics have perfected the art of setting standards that are so impossible that members MUST confess their sins by coming to church regularly, and paying their penance. Most other churches have their version of this.

-The twisted and damaging inculcation in children of the fear of Hellfire and Eternal damnation: a great abomination in my opinion.

=The Mormons' explicit threat that if you DON"T follow the prophet and his laws
you will lose contact with your family in eternity. (Paradise, after the Latter Days)

How do we judge the "morality" of these practices?

Mr. Otterson writes "After the thousand years, there will be a last great battle between the forces of good and evil, in which evil will finally be vanquished."

OK, I know this is one of the oldest critiques there is for monotheist devotees of Abrahamic faiths, but why would an all-powerful and all-good deity wait so long to vanquish evil when so many innocent people suffer greatly right now? Why go through all that?

As a related question, why would an all-powerful and all-good deity be so concerned about what a bunch of trivial creatures such as ourselves BELIEVE, to the extent that this deity would punish to eternal torment those who do not believe the Right Things? A deity that thinks like that is far too human to be all-powerful or all-good. In fact, such a deity is so suspiciously human that one is led to think the whole thing is a human construct.

At some point the Earth will no longer be be able to sustain life as the sun burns itself out.

Paradise Now

Isn't this subject ripe for cross-cultural study?

Isn't it interesting that there are different conceptions of Paradise in Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, and about 2,300 other religions?

What possible reason could there be to think that ANY ONE of them is more real (or more delusional) than the others?

A burning in one's chest?

Even if one IS a person of faith, isn't it beyond understanding, and in violation of the inviolable laws of logic and excluded middles?

Can God make a rock so heavy that not even she can lift it?

It is well-known in psychology that a temporally remote consequence has less impact on behavior than a more immediate one. We act most readily to avoid immediate pain or other discomfort (physical or emotional), while far distant pain or discomfort has less impact on behavioral choices. We act more readily to receive an immediate reward than we do a more distant one.

Thus, it is not at all surprising that the various "end-times" believing religions posit that those "end-times" are soon to come. In fact, it is quite humorous to even imagine such religions teaching otherwise (I tend to picture the wild-eyed man with the sandwich board sign reading "THE END IS FAR OFF YET!)

It is extremely unlikely that any leader of such a religious group will ever say that any days are anything other than the "latter days." It would dampen compliance.

Otterson failed to qualify what he meant by 'Jerusalem.' Specifically, Jerusalem means Jackson County, Missouri. This is a core belief and part of the 13 articles of faith of the LDS church.

Article 10: We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

Mark, I dont think Huff's platform dissolves in any context. In my lifetime, these prophecies have been repeated and confirmed, including being republished by the Church. I have included examples below. The Church teaches that Christ will reign and he will do so according to the Law of Consecration. How that law compares to marxism or communism or whatever, I have no damn clue. But whatever it is, it somehow involves giving everything to the Mormons/Christ.
-------------
Even this nation will be on the verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the Constitution is on the brink of ruin this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.

Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Historical Archives, Box 1, March 10, 1844 Also: D. Michael Stewart, "I Have a Question," Ensign, June 1976, 64-65

Parley P. Pratt wrote in 1841 that the prophet said, "The government is fallen and needs redeeming. It is guilty of Blood and cannot stand as it now is but will come so near desolation as to hang as it were by a single hair!!!!! Then the servants goes [sic] to the nations of the earth, and gathers the strength of the Lord’s house! A mighty army!!!!!! And this is the redemption of Zion when the saints shall have redeemed that government and reinstated it in all its purity and glory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

George A. Smith Papers, Church Archives, Box 7, Folder 5, January 21, 1841. Also: D. Michael Stewart, "I Have a Question," Ensign, June 1976, 64-65

Joe Cambell,

No, those are not the towns I am talking about.

If you read the Ethnographic work, "People of Rimrock", an interdisciplinary study of a Mormon community in New Mexico during the 1960s by Harvard social scientists, you'll see an example of what I am talking about.

These Mormons made sure no services were duplicated. There was absolutely no competition, but prices remained low because of communal attitudes and concern for the well being of the whole. The ethnographers did not document any of the behaviors you mention.

John D the First: "I do dream of social and economic Utopia...."

Your utopia is my gulag.

"Isolated Mormon towns have been very productive while maintaining united order like cooperation and equality. It is one of my most cherished concepts."

Isolated Mormon towns, like the ones in Northern Arizona and Southern Utah where old men rape their nieces and in-breeding over the past couple hundred years has created genetic disasters? The towns where women are beat into submission, where women have no rights? Where 13 year old girls are married off to old men?

Cherished concept, indeed.

"My friend John D prays that the world will end "sooner rather than later"."

I don't think it is the end of the world but the realization of it. I do dream of social and economic Utopia and a time when the limits on knowledge are transcended. My faith gives me hope of this.

Marx had a grand idea, that in its implementation has been a living h*ll. For the ideal to be realized, proper human capital is required with a compelling ideology to motivate human productivity. Not to mention a few technical changes (less centralization, more flexibility).

Isolated Mormon towns have been very productive while maintaining united order like cooperation and equality. It is one of my most cherished concepts.

Anyways, I can see the problem that hope for a second coming poses. Sometimes people do not see why to bother with social action now because it will all be fixed soon by Jesus.

I don't come to that conclusion, SO I would combat such attitudes with you James.

Let the World End Now!!!???@@@

My friend John D prays that the world will end "sooner rather than later".

John, I guess the Tradition you are worshipping here is the delusionary nineteenth century Utopianism that let to Communism and the United Order (the Mormon Version of Marxism).

We can't know today whether Jesus is *really* coming back,

but we can think about the consequences of believing in a Better World to Come on today's society.

One primary effect that it has on many who so believe is that it reduces motivation both to appreciate the beauties of this world (complicated though they may be) and also to work to eliminate the injustices in this world, since they will be corrected in the next.

The evidence that belief in deliverance by Jesus is a natural defense mechanism of the human psyche is 5,035,333 times stronger than the evidence that Jesus is EVER going to return and make everything OK.

Mr. Otterson,

"- After Christ’s triumph, the earth will be “celestialized” as the home for the righteous. In that sense the world will not end."

What happens to those who are not "righteous"?

I love to think about Christ's return and the accompanying advent of a Utopian society and unprecedented outpouring of knowledge.

"Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall breveal all things—Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the bearth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—
Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven."
(D&C 101:33-34).

I hope it arrives sooner than later.

Hueffenhardt:

If you take all of your quotes in context, your platform desolves.

think about it... .

Alright, you knew this was coming. Here are many prophecies made by LDS prophets about the timing of the Second Coming that have not come true. Now, there are many apologeticly inspired revised ways of looking at these prophecies so that they cannot be definitively proven as false. Among them the stretching of the word "generation" from the lifespan of a man and his cohort, virtually to the size of a dispensation. The only thing is, if the meaning of words can be changed to mean just about anything after the conventional meaning proves a prophecy false, then the prophecy means nothing to begin with and might as well have never been made.

But, since I cannot definitively pin these prophecies down, just like I cannot catch a greasy pig, I will let you apologists give all the standard faith preserving interpretations without contest.

The following comes from: tinyurl(dot)com/23z6u9

In the Doctrine and Covenants, 84:4-5 Joseph Smith received a supposed "divine revelation" on September 22 & 23, 1832 that reads,

"Verily, this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house." [emphasis MJS]

In 1833 Joseph Smith claimed,

"...My father presented himself,... I asked of him a father's blessing, which he granted by laying his hands upon my head, in the name of Jesus Christ, and declaring that I should continue in the priest's office until Christ comes" (History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 323).

Likewise, when the twelve "Apostles" were first ordained in the Mormon church, some of them as well received this special promise that they would live until Christ came:

"The blessing of Lyman E. Johnson was,... that he shall live until the gathering is accomplished,... and he shall see the Savior come and stand upon the earth with power and great glory" (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 188).

And "He (William Smith) shall be preserved and remain on the earth, until Christ shall come to take vengeance on the wicked." [parentheses and emphasis MJS] (Ibid. p. 191).

Following the "revelations" that Christ would return in the lifetime of Joseph Smith and some of his "apostles"; the timing of "this generation" (D&C 84:4-5, 31) became even more specific:

"I prophecy [sic] in the name of the Lord God- and let it be written: that the Son of Man will not come in the heavens until I am 85 years old, 48 years hence or about 1890" (Since the last six words of this "prophecy" have been TAKEN OUT by the LDS, I have cited the original source taken from Smith's diary, March 10, 1843 through July 14, 1843).

In 1835, "President Smith then stated,

"...it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh- even fifty-six years should wind up the scene" (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 182). Thus the dates 1890 and 1891were set.

In 1838 "Apostle" Parley P. Pratt stated,

"I will state as a prophecy [sic], that there will not be an unbelieving Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure over-thrown, within five or ten years from this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proven itself false" [emphasis MJS] (Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 405).

Of course this "prophecy" being the embarrassment that it is to the LDS church has been conveniently deleted from any modern version of the writings of Parley P. Pratt. Forty-five years later he commented on D&C 84:4-6,31 stating,

"....suffice it to say that the people living in 1832, when the revelation was given, will not all pass away; there will be some living when the house spoken of will be reared, on which the glory of God will rest. [emphasis MJS] (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 19, p.215, Dec. 9, 1877).

We must remember that Mr. Pratt was supposedly given the specific charge earlier in his life to "prophecy" about the Lord's return, "Therefore prophesy, and it shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost" (D&C 34:10).

Even after Joseph Smith and his "Apostles" died and Christ did not come in 1890 or 1891, instead of repenting of these false prophecies that Christ would return in the lifetime and generation of Joseph Smith and his "apostles", the LDS church blindly but willfully continued making such statements in their conference reports as

"Many of these young men and maidens that are here today will, in my opinion, if they are faithful, stand in the flesh when Christ comes in the clouds of heaven" [emphasis MJS] (Elder Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, April, 1898, p. 57).

"I believe it will come in the very day when some of us who are here today will be living upon the face of the earth. That day is close at handÎ [emphasis MJS] (Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, April, 1936 pp.75-76).

And :

"We are living in the dispensation and generation to which Jesus referred..." [emphasis MJS] (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14, p. 5).

We also find the Mormons doing what the Jehovah Witnesses do when their predictions don't come to pass concerning the phrase "this generation", in that they are forced to contradict earlier statements and "prophecies", or to just keep on STRETCHING it out!!! Sensing a major problem in 1890 when Christ wasn't coming as Joseph Smith prophesied that He would, the 1890 D&C edition carried a footnote that claimed a generation could be longer than a hundred years. This of course cannot be substantiated from the Bible. But we have now even surpassed the longest generation in The Book of Mormon, 4Nephi 18 which was claimed to have lasted 110 years. Even if we said Smith's "prophecy" in 1832 (see D&C 84:4-5,31) was referring to babies born on that very day, this would bring us to 163 years and counting! A generation according to the Bible and other cultures is a period of 30-40 years. Jesus promised to return in the generation and lifetime of some of his Apostles (Peter, James, John, etc...) and not in Joseph Smith's or our lifetimes and generation!

D&C 77:6 "Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." And the Millennium is supposed to last for 1,000 years. So, depending on whether you place the fall of Adam at 4,004 BC or 4,000 BC, the Millennium was supposed to start in 1996 or 2000 AD. Oh, and there is supposed to be a space of time after the Millennium for Satan to be let loose before the final judgment, so that moves the beginning of the Millennium up to even before 1996.

Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, delivered a fabulous talk on the topic entitled Terror, Triumph, and a Wedding Feast. Here are a couple of relevant passages from the talk, which emphasize the responsibility of trying to be good people rather than worrying about doomsday prophecies.

"I know that many of you have wondered in your hearts what all of this means regarding the end of the world and your life in it. Many have asked, 'Is this the hour of the Second Coming of the Savior and all that is prophesied surrounding that event?' Indeed, sometime not long after 9-11, I had a missionary ask me in all honesty and full of faith, 'Elder Holland, are these the last days?' I saw the earnestness in his face and some of the fear in his eyes, and I wanted to be reassuring. I thought perhaps an arm around him and some humor could relieve his anxiety a little. Giving him a hug, I said, 'Elder, I may not be the brightest person alive, but even I know the name of the Church.' We then talked about being Latter-day Saints. I said, 'Yes, Elder, we are in the last days, but there is really nothing new about that. The promised Second Coming of the Savior began with the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1820. So we already have about 184 years of experience seeing the Second Coming and the last days unfold. We can be certain that we are in the last days-years and years of them,' I said, and gave him a friendly shake of the hand and sent him on his way.

"In times of anxiety we tend to focus pretty much (like my young missionary friend did) on the 'Latter-day' part of that title.

"But tonight I issue a call to each of you to concentrate on the 'Saint' portion of that phrase. That is the element in our Church title that should be demanding our attention. Think of the blessings we enjoy. Think of the remarkable age in which we live. Think of the economic and educational, scientific and spiritual blessings we have that no other era or people in the history of the world have ever had, and then consider the responsibility we have to live worthily in our moment in time."

Source: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=8366

I read a book a few years back about the book of Revelation in the New Testament. The author did not attempt to say for certain what all the symbolism represented. Instead, the main thought I took from the book was a very simple truth. In the end - the good guys win. Good WILL triumph over evil. As overwhelming as the evil in the world sometimes seems, I take great comfort in this truth. My challenge is to live my life in such a way that I am one of the 'good guys'.