Jump to content

Joseph Smith claimed to be a heretic.


BenjaminL.Toms

Recommended Posts

This is a claim that the Book of Mormon is better than the Bible.

? It is a claim that abiding its precepts will get one closer to God.

If you deem that better, fine.

Feel free to take that claim for a test run and see if it's bluster, or if it's reality.

(Most of us here already have.)

This means that in ways it is different.

Of course. Just as Hebrews is different from James.

It cannot be the same gospel if it is better.

Oh? What of those who say certain books of the New Testament are more doctrinally relevant than others?

(Similar argument - same unnecessary conundrum.)

The B.O.M. cannot at the same time be both the same gospel as the Bible and more correct than the Bible.

See above.

There can be no doubt that Joseph Smith claims to have been visited by an angel of light from heaven.

???Now consider the Word of God:

Link to comment

Oh, sorry about posting it in the wrong place. Where should I have posted it?

And should I post it there and discontinue this or just stay here and reply but try and be nice (not that I wouldn't be anywhere else)?

The discussion and dialogue forum is specifically for debate so it would be best to post it there.

It would probably be easiest to PM a moderator and just ask them to move it rather than to repost it over there but sometimes it takes a while for a mod to show up so it's your call.

I don't think there's any way to discuss this in this forum because every mormon who comes upon it will disagree with what you've said and give their arguements on why you are wrong-pretty much the defition of debate.

:P

Link to comment

Oh, sorry about posting it in the wrong place. Where should I have posted it?

In the bathroom stall, along with all the other drive-by jibberish by semi-adolescents who haven't bothered to educate themselves.

Or, if you looking for someplace a little less classy, you might try CARM- they'll be happy to pat you on the back for your ill-informed and heavily bigoted rant.

And should I post it there and discontinue this or just stay here and reply but try and be nice (not that I wouldn't be anywhere else)?

You might consider acquainting yourself with the board guidelines.

Drive-by's, love-bombs, and proselyting are not allowed on these boards.

Take your sermon someplace else, we've got the Gospel instead.

Take your insults somewhere else. You are banned from the thread.

Link to comment
Take your sermon someplace else, we've got the Gospel instead.
In the bathroom stall, along with all the other drive-by jibberish by semi-adolescents who haven't bothered to educate themselves.

You have the gospel but not love... so you have nothing. -1 Cor. 13:1-3

It would probably be easiest to PM a moderator and just ask them to move it rather than to repost it over there but sometimes it takes a while for a mod to show up so it's your call.

Thank you, bluebell.

Link to comment
Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it
Link to comment

This is where Joseph Smith claimed to be a heretic, and I for one admire him for it.

"I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels good not to be trammeled." - Joseph Smith

Link to comment
This is a claim that the Book of Mormon is better than the Bible. A man would get nearer to God by abiding by it than he would by abiding by the Bible. This means that in ways it is different. It cannot be the same gospel if it is better.

Why not? If you had bothered to actually read the BoM you would know that it's better because it restores some of the things that had been removed from the Bible. So it can't possibly be a different gospel, just a more complete one.

Link to comment

Why not? If you had bothered to actually read the BoM you would know that it's better because it restores some of the things that had been removed from the Bible. So it can't possibly be a different gospel, just a more complete one.

The OP is misunderstanding the warning of Paul. The context of the quotation is important since members of the early church were being led away by pagans and false preachers teaching a different doctrine than Paul. Mormons are basically a Pauline people and follow paul's teachings quite well.

Link to comment

Benjamin

This is the oldest argument in the book and we have heard it many times. It is just boring to have to deal with it again. I suggest you read for a while before you post old hackneyed arguments. It is a waste of time to even respond. There is no conflict with the Bible and we have much more doctrine than is contained in the Bible. Call it new, call it the same, call it different, that is your opinion.

And your opinion is irrelevant.

Link to comment

10735.gif

PERFECT!!!

In this context, I just can't stop laughing at this thing!! Best laugh I have had all month! Absolute perfection! I even like the spiderman suit!

Link to comment

First of all and to all of you: I do not aim to offend. My aim is to get at the truth and you are all called to the same thing. You believe what your prophet says is inspired and scripture (yes I am telling you what you believe or rather I am repeating what the LDS doctrine states you should. I think that is quite reasonable)

"How are we going to walk in the truth if we do not know it? There is no valid excuse on the part of any member of the Church for a display of ignorance of the fundamental principles of the Gospel as they are now revealed and published for the benefit of the world, for our attention has been forcibly called to them, and we have been commanded to make ourselves familiar with them by study and also by faith. They are accessible and within the reach of all" (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 302).

If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures... - Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th prophet of LDS

Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest (D. & C. 71:7).

So I am well within my rights according to your own scripture. I am not the one who declared war; your founder did and he called you to the front lines. So let's put away the pretense. Does that mean that we have to fight the war without love? No, but let's not fool ourselves that it is a war. I am not nor will I be rude or out of love. If I am I will apologize. So let's continue.

The Bible itself, which is not a unitary work but rather an entire sacred library of a great and ancient people, makes no claim to perfection.

Here is what the Bible claims

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim 3:16,17

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Heb. 4:12

How does one "be complete" with imperfect scripture? How can scripture inspired by God (or God-breathed) be imperfect? How would it be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" if it were imperfect?

How does one come to a living and powerful Word and then strip it of parts of itself, unless that one is more powerful? And then who would be more powerful to do that? Men's faulted nature? Why would God choose to write through them then? And then say that His word is alive?

He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, - Deut. 32:4

As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the LORD is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him. - 2 Sam. 22:31

If God is inspiring human authors to write His word down, does that qualify as God's work? Yes. and it's perfect and living.

Jesus is the Way. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Word is the Way. The Word is therefore perfect.

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; - Ps. 19:7

That about covers it I think.

Neither does the BoM

So it claims to be more correct than any other book (which includes the Bible) but also claims to possibly be faulted due to human error (the Bible says no such thing about itself) and we are supposed to believe in what it says? If they can foul it up then it's their word not God's. If God is not powerful enough to speak His word through a faulted vessel but still retain quality control and deliver His perfect Word; while at the same time allowing it to be colored with the personality and style of the vessel, then I don't think I want to follow that God. That would seem to me to be a simple task for God; considering He is the one wanting to speak to us so we have His word to assure ourselves of the truth. I don't think He would let it be converted and subverted by our nature which He in fact is the author and creator of in the first place.

Have you tested JSJr's claims? Have you tested his words you quoted, or are you just playing semantic games?

yes. and they fail.

He did nothing of the kind. He says the BoM is a purer packaging of the same Gospel message.

What he said is that it is more correct. How can it be more correct and not change anything? Didn't the angel Moroni say that the book contained "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel"? Doesn't the BoM say "that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God."? -1 Ne 13:28 What are those plain and precious things if not parts of the gospel? How can they be precious and not important? The fact is that Mormons claim the Bible is not correct and that they have the corrections. This claim is equivalent to having the gospel while we do not. That is a claim to another gospel; a better one, one without missing parts. And Paul warned us about it.

It's worse than that. JSJr claims to have seen G-d and the Master, as well as many angels, including the one you refer to, on more than one occasion.

Yep, there is never a debate about the fact that an angel from heaven delivered the new gospel; always just that it isn't a different gospel.

I don't see the problem. Either he was an angel or he wasn't. Either JSJr saw and heard him or he didn't. Either JSJr is G-d's prophet or he isn't. Playing these games won't answer those questions.

putting words in my mouth/straw man fallacy. I am not playing those games

No, not a different gospel. The same gospel delivered directly from G-d and His holy angels directly to a prophet of G-d scant 190-odd years ago. What wonderful news! No problems of transmission. No problems of translation. No problems of interpolation. G-d's own word delivered for your benefit. Pure and clean and filled with G-d's own power.

Yes, it's different if it has no problems of transmission while the Bible does. The problem is that you don't trust what Paul said because you believe what the BoM says... that the Bible cannot be trusted. But the Bible first said to beware that type of thing. You Mormons build your house on top of our house but assail our house to be broken while at the same time using it as a sure foundation. It is a twisted lie. You see the new covenant was delivered and it was better than the old one. But the Old one prophesied many a time that the new one was coming. God spoke from the old one confirming the coming of the replacement. So that the old house is not busted. We do not stand on broken house. The BoM was not prophesied to be coming. If it is the work of God then it would be confirmed by the Bible. And if those confirmations are the things lost and therefore God needs to start over then you serve a powerless God. If things could be so unsure and wishy washy then God is weak. Sure Israel over and over needed to be restored to a right relationship but the Word of God never needed to be restored. And that is the real deal about Mormonism. You have tried to say that God needed to restore His Word. If God's Word can be broken then I don't want to serve Him. Cause it could be broken again. How can you trust a Word supposedly given by a God whose last Word was faulty? Your book even disclaimers itself with " And if there be faults, they be the faults of a man." -Morm 8:17 IF THERE BE FAULTS? My God didn't give me His Word with a disclaimer like that. My God gave me a Word that says, "This Word is from the LORD. It is proven and sure. It is perfect and without fault and worthy to be trusted for correcting the lies of the enemy. It is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." My God gave me a sharp weapon that does not grow dull and need to be sharpened. PRAISE YAHWEH!

No . . . you call it the Word of G-d, but what you have is an allegedly preserved communication from G-d through an alleged messenger, Saul/Paul, who may or may not have had authority from G-d to speak on G-d's behalf.

An accusation against something established does not strip the thing of it's establishment. Since the thing is established, the accusation needs to be established as true first to then bring the establishment of the thing under question. So rather... No, we have the Word of God that you call NOT the Word of God allegedly. Your accusation is what is under the scope first, not the Word of God.

This looks exactly like the problem with JSJr: He claims to speak on behalf of G-d has delivered a message, just as Saul/Paul claims to have spoken on behalf of G-d

No it is not the same problem. Paul had to deal with a principle that JSJr skirts; namely that what Paul said to have been from God conforms to the test of divine authorship. Any words from God cannot contradict earlier revelation. They can reveal new things but they cannot contradict the old. Since Paul went first and passed the test, JSJr is oblidged to be in sinc with Paul and not the other way around.

You never demonstrated that Saul/Paul delivered a different Gospel than JSJr did . . . kind of a hole in your argument

Why should I (not that I can't or even won't cause I will) when JSJr says it plainly that what he was delivered was different? :P

BTW: loved that Spider-man clip! That's funny stuff. If we can't laugh at ourselves who can we?

Link to comment
I would like to suggest that before you begin to tell the LDS posters what Mormonism is or isn't that you thouroughly familiarize yourself with it's doctrine and precepts. Your post shows a trmendous lack of understanding of anything LDS.

I am familiar. I just started at the beginning. Maybe you are lacking understanding of anything Benjamin L. Toms and should not be quick to judge? Here are the words of your prophet on the subject.

You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself. . . . When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then. - King Follett discourse; (History of the Church 6:317)
So I say welcome and suggest you spend at least as much time listening as you do talking. Another old adage my grandmother used to tell me is that "you cant learn anything while talking".

Thank you and I feel welcome. I am listening. In fact that is why I came here to begin with.

Link to comment

Thank you and I feel welcome. I am listening. In fact that is why I came here to begin with.

I hope you stick around long enough to learn a bit about the Latter-day Saints. I think you'll find we are not the cultists that you think we are. We believe in Jesus -- the same Jesus that you believe in, and we believe that he died for our sins, just as you do.

I know you think we are at war, but we aren't. We are on the same side. The battle is with the great adversary, Satan. Let's have civil discussion, and learn about each other through love, not contentment.

The first thing that I think you must realize is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CoJCoLDS) is an institution, like other institutions, ran by human beings. We believe it is directed by Christ, but at its temporal helm have always been human beings. As humans, we are entitled to our opinions and our follies. It is these truths that make us who we are. So, when Joseph Smith says there are people on the moon, that is not to be taken as a teaching of our Church, but an opinion of Joseph Smith. Likewise, the Journal of Discourses and the King Follet Discourse, although interesting and insightful much of the time, are not doctrine of our church. These things are not sticks with which to beat us. In return, we will spare you from quoting some of the inane and nasty, yet very human things preachers, pastors, priests, and other clergy from all of Christendom have said in the past. We understand that, just because someone in the history of your Church said it, doesn't mean it is doctrine of the church.

Again, welcome to the board. Stick around.

Link to comment

Hi BLT,

Welcome, and I am pleased that you are here to listen. However, before warring with each other in love, are you open to peace in love?

If so, then it may prove useful to first deliniate those beliefs we have in common, and work from there.

For starters, do you agree with me that the ultimate purpose of the gospel is to bring us to Christ and enable us to grow in faith to become like him?

If so, what, if anything, is there about your faith that you believe would better enable me to realize the purpose of the gospel than my current faith? In other words, what insentive would I have for shifting from my current faith to your's?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...