Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Neo,Does that mean JFS was an uneducated mobster? No.. It means that they used secondary sources. Because Joseph wasn't penning his own discourses as he gave them.We have some perfect examples of how distorted some of the things Joseph said got after people heard them on the other end of the telephone.Heres what Joseph actually said...D&C 13014 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the acoming 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.17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.Here is how Oliver Cowdery understood what he said:President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it;....and 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 Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Sure it does Neo... Just becuase you want to continue taking the blue pill. And remain in ignorance.Do you beleive Christ saying that true beleivers will do greater works than even he did? I don't see you crucifiyng him for that?! Did not every one of his followers except the 12 run away from him?Joseph was exactly SPOT on... that he had been successful in holding a church together. Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Sure it does Neo... Just becuase you want to continue taking the blue pill. And remain in ignorance.Do you beleive Christ saying that true beleivers will do greater works than even he did?Did not every one of his followers except the 12 run away from him?Joseph was exactly SPOT on... that he had been successful in holding a church together. Was he SPOT on about "knowing more than all the world put together"?Neo Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Sure he was... After speaking with God Christ and various Angels who wouldn't be enlightedned?Moses had to wear a veil becuase he was so Enlightened by God his face shown like a light bulb. Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Sure he was... After speaking with God Christ and various Angels who wouldn't be enlightedned?Moses had to wear a veil becuase he was so Enlightened by God his face shown like a light bulb. I am always amazed at the mental gymnastics it takes to continually defend Mormon leaders despite their often arrogant, deceptive, and/or contradictory statements.Neo Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 And I am amazed by all the Cognitive Disonance that goes on by people who claim to beleive their Bible. Link to comment
Jaybear Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 No.. It means that they used secondary sources. Because Joseph wasn't penning his own discourses as he gave them. ..... Heres what Joseph actually said...Did JS pen Section 130? If not, how do you know its exactly what JS said? It strkes me that you are presuming that Oliver is interpreting Section 130, and not reiterating from what he heard JS say on another occasion. Though I can see why you would want to obfuscate the two events. Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 And I am amazed by all the Cognitive Disonance that goes on by people who claim to beleive their Bible. Another attempt to divert the issue of this thread which has nothing to do with the Bible.Neo Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Joseph is cosistant. He did not know when Christ would come all he knew was that it would not be any "sooner" than his 85th Birthday (1891) He may very well of thought that was the date but the Lord did not tell him... he blew Joseph off. Gave him a stupur of thought. And since Joseph died in 1844... the point is pretty moot anyway because Joseph Did see Christs Face before/by that time. Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Neo,It has everything to do with the Bible and your refusal to use a true/fair balance. Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Neo,It has everything to do with the Bible and your refusal to use a true/fair balance. The title of this thread is John Taylor's view on Polygamy. Your attempts to divert the subject into arguments about the Bible are painfully obvious and irrelevant to the discussion.Neo Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Yes it is about John Taylors view on Polygamy... but where pray tell do you think he got his "view" of Polygamy from if it weren't from the Bible? And since more than that you have turned the thread into... All mormon leaders are lieing mobocrats. While every person who ever is mentioned in the Bible is a saint and how dare anybody mention any of them and sin in the same line. Link to comment
Jaybear Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 And I am amazed by all the Cognitive Disonance that goes on by people who claim to beleive their Bible. Another attempt to divert the issue of this thread which has nothing to do with the Bible.Neo Ahh, but you are wrong. Zak's argument is that biblical prophets lied, mormon leaders lied, ergo mormon leaders can lie and still be prophets. Perhaps the more relevant question to press to Zak is whether he believes the lies underlying the manifesto were inspired by God. If the lie was inspired by God to fool the US governement, then doesnt that mean God did not rescind polgyamy? He simply wanted his Prophet to fool the government into thinking the doctrine had been rescinded. If God wanted the Church to practice polgyamy in secret, with the secret being that the directive was a divinely inspried llie, then when the Church stopped practicing polygamy, did they start practing a lie. I am so confused. Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Yes it is about John Taylors view on Polygamy... but where pray tell do you think he go his 'view" of Polygamy from if it weren't from the bible? He got it from Joseph Smith. Regardless, nothing you have mentioned from the Bible has anything to do with polygamy.Neo Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Yes it is about John Taylors view on Polygamy... but where pray tell do you think he got his "view" of Polygamy from if it weren't from the Bible? And since more than that you have turned the thread into... All mormon leaders are lieing mobocrats. While every person who ever is mentioned in the Bible is a saint and how dare anybody mention any of them and sin in the same line. I said no such thing. In fact, I readily admitted that Jonah, David, and Peter were deeply flawed. Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 By small things... God works his wonders.How many prostitutes are there in the birth line of Christ?There is a time to lie and a time to tell the truth. Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 And I am amazed by all the Cognitive Disonance that goes on by people who claim to beleive their Bible. Another attempt to divert the issue of this thread which has nothing to do with the Bible.Neo Ahh, but you are wrong. Zak's argument is that biblical prophets lied, mormon leaders lied, ergo mormon leaders can lie and still be prophets. Perhaps the more relevant question to press to Zak is whether he believes the lies underlying the manifesto were inspired by God. If the lie was inspired by God to fool the US governement, then doesnt that mean God did not rescind polgyamy? He simply wanted his Prophet to fool the government into thinking the doctrine had been rescinded. If God wanted the Church to practice polgyamy in secret, with the secret being that the directive was a divinely inspried llie, then when the Church stopped practicing polygamy, did they start practing a lie. I am so confused. Excellent point, Jaybear. Zak?Neo Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Yes it is about John Taylors view on Polygamy... but where pray tell do you think he got his "view" of Polygamy from if it weren't from the Bible? And since more than that you have turned the thread into... All mormon leaders are lieing mobocrats. While every person who ever is mentioned in the Bible is a saint and how dare anybody mention any of them and sin in the same line. I said no such thing. In fact, I readily admitted that Jonah, David, and Peter were deeply flawed. And you never crucified them nor stripped them of Prophet Status as you have LDS leaders. Why? I suspect a Double Standard.Mormon Prophets and leader have to be Perfect (Christs incarnate) to be considered prophets and men of God. Why? Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Yes it is about John Taylors view on Polygamy... but where pray tell do you think he got his "view" of Polygamy from if it weren't from the Bible? And since more than that you have turned the thread into... All mormon leaders are lieing mobocrats. While every person who ever is mentioned in the Bible is a saint and how dare anybody mention any of them and sin in the same line. I said no such thing. In fact, I readily admitted that Jonah, David, and Peter were deeply flawed. And you never crucified them nor stripped them of Prophet Status as you have LDS leaders. Why? I suspect a Double Standard. I have already explained the vast differences between those men and Mormon leaders. From this point on, I will not be responding to anything with regard to the Bible, but only with regard to the subject of this post.Neo Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 So you conceed you have a double standard.Ok... I guess we can move on. Link to comment
Neo Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 So you conceed you have a double standard.Ok... I guess we can move on. I conceed to no such thing.Neo Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 You don't need to... you have proven yourself.Lets move on. Link to comment
Familyof4 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 John 14:12"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."This to me seems that we can do greater things because we can work with Christ from the Father ie resurection. To say that another will do greater works then Jesus Christ is completly wrong IMO.This seems to very clear to me; because I go unto my Father."That is the clincher and only possible because of Jesus Christ. You cannot take anything away from Christ here...sorry I dont agree. There are NO greater works then what Jesus Christ has done....None...nada.. Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Thats ok... you're entittled to your opinion. But it does not reflect what the verse says. Yes the ressurcetion had not happened yet. so it could not be among the works he is talking about. But he is intimating that some one would do a work greater than he did on the earth. Link to comment
Zakuska Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Jaybear,Ahh, but you are wrong. Zak's argument is that biblical prophets lied, mormon leaders lied, ergo mormon leaders can lie and still be prophets. Actually we need to elaborate a little more.Bibilical prophets. lied, commited adultury, murdered, commited ethnic cleansings and all sorts of hanous and abominable things. All of these are considered "Prophets" and "men of God" by Neo... for the most part Mormon leaders did none of these things yet they are the ones looked at as hell hounds. Something is wrong with this picture! It seems to me just becuase these men are in th Bible isNeo's only reason for considering them such. But there the double standard comes in becuase people who have smaller character flaws than the bibilical leaders are automatically thrown out just because they are LDS. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.