lds apologist response to joseph f smith's testimony in reed smoot trial

[ElfLord]

So....who is ready to leave the church now the Nicleus has shown the church to be so false.

I am! Now wheres the door?

[Ceeboo]

The whole point about getting people to testify in front of the congress is that is it generally harder for people to lie since the consequences are felt to be higher.

Huh?

I always thought the whole point about getting people to testify in front of congress was to provide an enviornment for the corrupt, arrogant, and self-serving members of congress another opportunity to display their abuse of power.

Guess I was wrong.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Huh?

I always thought the whole point about getting people to testify in front of congress was to provide an enviornment for the corrupt, arrogant, and self-serving members of congress another opportunity to display their abuse of power.

Guess I was wrong.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Brilliantly stated.

[ElfLord]

So, according to the NT formulation, the apostles meet together in a quorum, decide upon a course of conduct, propose it and if accepted it becomes revelation. Case in point -- John A. Taylor found in his father's papers a document which the junior Taylor contended were draft revelations in D&C style in Pres. Taylor's handwriting which, if adopted, would have made plural marriage an eternal practice that even the government couldn't force the church to stop. The junior Taylor argued that the Church was wrong to abandon plural marriage in light of this documents. The problem with junior's argument is that the draft was never presented to the Q12 and, thus, wasn't really a revelation under Church rules and the NT model.

Case further in point -- We see the exact same pattern in the book of Acts.

Acts 15

Conflict over Circumcision

¹ And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren,

[Pahoran]

here is the transcript of the reed smoot trial

Correction: it is not the transcript; it is merely a portion of the transcript. And it was not a trial; it was a hearing in which corrupt politicians attempted to impose a religious test for public office, contrary to the alleged principles of the US Constitution.

The notion that any secular body should presume to conduct such an inquisition is an utter disgrace; almost as disgraceful as the fact that people today still think this can be exploited for polemical purposes.

And, just so you know: Joseph F. Smith was a better man than any of his attackers, then or now, could ever dream of being.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The whole point about getting people to testify in front of the congress is that is it generally harder for people to lie since the consequences are felt to be higher.

In partial opposition to what David said, I take it that it is actually harder to be deceptive in front of congress--not easier. I agree that the whole thing threw him off, but it threw him off in that the questions were simple and direct and he had to just answer straightforwardly instead of take advantage of the religious assumptions of his usual faithful audience.

He knew he wasn't talking to a credulous group of followers that already thought of him as someone who talks to God.

He may have never before had to face such direct simple skeptical questions.

The answer to all this is simple: He was telling the plain truth.

He didn't have the nerve to spin it and he couldn't depend on his audience just assuming supernatural or fantastic things about him.

The assumption that the leaders of the Church regularly deceive the members is orthodox, boilerplate anti-Mormonism. Thank you for finally being candid enough to lay out your true ideology.

But really Tarski, you ought not to project your own level of honesty upon men who are so immeasurably better than yourself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

So....who is ready to leave the church now the Nicleus has shown the church to be so false.

What is fascinating to me is why people like Nicleus get such pleasure in searching for and parsing words in order to disparage good men. I still go back to my original statement of "Pearls before Swine." Why on earth in such a hostile environment would a prophet elaborate on any revelation he might receive unless it was to directly condemn those present. Even Christ refused to answer Herod when before him. When asked by Pilate whether he was King of the Jews, why didn't Jesus just state clearly who he was. Rather he answered in a roundabout way about his kingdom being not of this world, though in truth the world is not only his kingdom but his creation. One simply doesn't elaborate in some venues.

[Lightbearer]

Actually this entire thread for some reason brought this scripture to mind:

(Acts 23:1-5) "AND Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

Guess it shows how sometimes prophets and apostles fail to show grace under fire.

[Tarski]

Huh?

I always thought the whole point about getting people to testify in front of congress was to provide an enviornment for the corrupt, arrogant, and self-serving members of congress another opportunity to display their abuse of power.

Guess I was wrong.

Yes, you were wrong--you are quite talented at that.

[Ceeboo]

deleted upon reflection

[Zakuska]

(Acts 23:1-5) "AND Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

Actually this entire thread for some reason brought this scripture to mind:Guess it shows how sometimes prophets and apostles fail to show grace under fire.

So Paul turns out to be a regular J. Golden Kimball... "God-d**m you Ananias for smiting me!"

And this was how many years AFTER Paul became an Apostle of Jesus Christ?

[Tarski]

The assumption that the leaders of the Church regularly deceive the members is orthodox, boilerplate anti-Mormonism. Thank you for finally being candid enough to lay out your true ideology.

Paul Dunn did it consciously as did a former Stake President of mine. Not so for many others. I don't know who is firstly self-deceived and who just thinks their deceptions serve a higher faith promoting service and who has managed to not even give false impressions. But I know this, the highest level GAs and the FP allow rank and file members to think that they have direct, if not face to face, contact with Christ himself. Letting them think this wouldn't be my idea of a good policy of honesty. But then they are immeasurably better than me. No, wait! No they are not better than me (jeez I almost fell into the old submissive habit of thought I was trained with as a young Mormon).

But really Tarski, you ought not to project your own level of honesty upon men who are so immeasurably better than yourself.

Well, they aren't better than me and if I were to tell senators that I didn't receive revelation I would tell it to the church too. But that's just me.

But, hey, if you think they are better than you, who am I to disagree? I certainly can't picture them talking like you (saying who is better than who etc.).

Regards,

Tarski

[Pahoran]

Paul Dunn did it consciously as did a former Stake President of mine. Not so for many others. I don't know who is firstly self-deceived and who just thinks their deceptions serve a higher faith promoting service and who has managed to not even give false impressions.

And this exhausts the spectrum of possibilities in your mind, does it? You really can't conceive of genuine believers forthrightly stating what they genuinely believe, as almost all of them do?

But I know this, the highest level GAs and the FP allow rank and file members to think that they have direct, if not face to face, contact with Christ himself.

Call for references, please. If you "know" it, you must therefore be able to support it; good little scientist and sceptic that you are.

Well, they aren't better than me and if I were to tell senators that I didn't receive revelation I would tell it to the church too. But that's just me.

What's "just you" is to blatantly ignore the fact that President Smith clarified his statement the next day. No, wait; it's not just you at all. It's all the other anti-Mormons as well.

Call for references that President Smith told the Church anything different than what he told the Inquisition of which you so enthusiastically approve.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

good little scientist and sceptic that you are.

LOL

Well if 6 ft 2 at 216 lbs with 12% body fat is your idea of little then OK.

Naturally, I don't like your tone so I'll exercise my right to mostly ignore you until I find myself enjoying your tone better.

Nothing will be lost by this policy since you couldn't be moved from you position by an 100 megaton atomic explosion of rationality.

We aren't going to get anywhere for the simple reason that you take it as axiomatic that the church is just "true" in the strongest of senses while all its leaders are the finest humans to ever live and anyone who thinks otherwise and dares say so is despicable.

[Bob Crockett]

And it was not a trial; it was a hearing in which corrupt politicians attempted to impose a religious test for public office, contrary to the alleged principles of the US Constitution.

Well, that's harsh. However, Senator DuBois of Idaho, the instigator of the whole thing, was the most rabid anti-Mormon on the planet -- supporting test oaths for Mormons in Idaho. The hearing was an outrage, asking almost everybody appearing before it questions about their sex lives and deepest feelings about religion. All driven by Evangelical hatred of all things Mormon.

Catholics and Jews stood up for the Mormons but there were weak and almost as oppressed.

[Vance]

Well, that's harsh. However, Senator DuBois of Idaho, the instigator of the whole thing, was the most rabid anti-Mormon on the planet -- supporting test oaths for Mormons in Idaho. The hearing was an outrage, asking almost everybody appearing before it questions about their sex lives and deepest feelings about religion. All driven by Evangelical hatred of all things Mormon.

Catholics and Jews stood up for the Mormons but there were weak and almost as oppressed.

Don't you just love those "Christians" that believe in the "right Jesus".

[Bob Crockett]

Don't you just love those "Christians" that believe in the "right Jesus".

One of the Supreme Court Justices who decided the Reynolds case against the Church was the President of the American Bible Tract Society (or whatever it was called then) as well as the president of the committee to pass a constitutional amendment to declare the U.S. a Christian nation. One member of that committee, a sitting federal judge, proposed an amendment to the proposed amendment which would outlaw the Catholic Church in the U.S.

All sorts of interesting tidbits about the Evangelical crusade against the Church through Congress. Our good friend Thomas Kane devoted large parts of his later life fighting against Evangelical influence in Congress against the Mormons; a recent BYU Studies article in the Kane volume has a footnote pointing to major treatises discussing legislative Evangelicalism.

One of the Supreme Court Justices who decided the Reynolds case against the Church was the President of the American Bible Tract Society (or whatever it was called then) as well as the president of the committee to pass a constitutional amendment to declare the U.S. a Christian nation. One member of that committee, a sitting federal judge, proposed an amendment to the proposed amendment which would outlaw the Catholic Church in the U.S.

All sorts of interesting tidbits about the Evangelical crusade against the Church through Congress. Our good friend Thomas Kane devoted large parts of his later life fighting against Evangelical influence in Congress against the Mormons; a recent BYU Studies article in the Kane volume has a footnote pointing to major treatises discussing legislative Evangelicalism.

Some people wonder why the Mormons sometimes align with the atheists against government establishment of religion (prayers in schools, crosses on public grounds). There's a rich history of the same folks who push for government establishment of religion as being the same ones using government force to fight Mormons.

[Bob Crockett]

dupe

[Pahoran]

LOL

Well if 6 ft 2 at 216 lbs with 12% body fat is your idea of little then OK.

Naturally, I don't like your tone so I'll exercise my right to mostly ignore you until I find myself enjoying your tone better.

You have complained about my "tone" before; oddly enough, it only prompts you to ignore me when I start calling for references to your assertions.

Funny, that.

You previously wrote:

But I know this, the highest level GAs and the FP allow rank and file members to think that they have direct, if not face to face, contact with Christ himself.

Call for references, please. If you "know" it, you must therefore be able to support it.

Call for references that President Smith told the Church anything different than what he told the Inquisition of which you so enthusiastically approve.

Nothing will be lost by this policy since you couldn't be moved from you position by an 100 megaton atomic explosion of rationality. We aren't going to get anywhere for the simple reason that you take it as axiomatic that the church is just "true" in the strongest of senses while all its leaders are the finest humans to ever live and anyone who thinks otherwise and dares say so is despicable.

While you think that characterising your ideological opponents as liars, and propagating false and nasty stereotypes about "submissive habits of thought" -- well-poisoning tactics that are far beneath the brethren, BTW -- constitute an "explosion of rationality."

So you're right; we're not going to come to a meeting of the minds any time soon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Call for references, please. If you "know" it, you must therefore be able to support it.

Do you actually disagree with his assertion?

Bear in mind, there are four components to his assertion:

1. It is a common perception among rank and file members, that GAs have personally interact with Jesus Christ.

2. It not true.

3. The GA are aware of this common misperception.

4. The GA's have done nothing to dispel this misperception.

So by issuing a CFR, are you expressing your disagreement with Tarski, or are you just issuing a CFR, because that is what apologists do when presented with uncomfortable truths?

[nickleus]

Do you actually disagree with his assertion?

Bear in mind, there are four components to his assertion:

1. It is a common perception among rank and file members, that GAs have personally interact with Jesus Christ.

2. It not true.

3. The GA are aware of this common misperception.

4. The GA's have done nothing to dispel this misperception.

So by issuing a CFR, are you expressing your disagreement with Tarski, or are you just issuing a CFR, because that is what apologists do when presented with uncomfortable truths?

exactly. the church teaches that apostles and prophets are special witnesses of jesus christ, when actually the wording is "special witnesses of *the name* of jesus christ". where is their special witness i ask, as in more special than any other member's witness by "the holy ghost" (note dallin oaks admits he has never even had a burning of the bosom testimony)? none of them have ever personally seen jesus christ in person (like joseph smith or christ's apostles in the NT, and others). here's my treatise on the subject:

http://truthunderthe...phets-seen.html

on my mission in 1996, russell nelson came to see us and told us that the first assignment an apostle gets is to go to the temple and pray and fast and meditate until jesus christ reveals himself to them. i struggle to find on lds.org, nelson's special witness about jesus christ revealing himself to nelson in the temple...

[Deborah]

none of them have ever personally seen jesus christ.

And you know this how?

on my mission in 1996, russell nelson came to see us and told us that the first assignment an apostle gets is to go to the temple and pray and fast and meditate until jesus christ reveals himself to them. i struggle to find on lds.org, nelson's special witness about jesus christ revealing himself to nelson in the temple...

And you really think an Apostle would put such a sacred experience up on a public forum. The will not share such experiences except in the most sacred and private circumstances. I have heard them testify over and over that they "know" Jesus is the Christ. Why on earth would they share the way the got such knowledge with people like you who only seek to mock.

[nickleus]

And you know this how?

And you really think an Apostle would put such a sacred experience up on a public forum. The will not share such experiences except in the most sacred and private circumstances. I have heard them testify over and over that they "know" Jesus is the Christ. Why on earth would they share the way the got such knowledge with people like you who only seek to mock.

i expected this type of reply. are you serious? an apostle's job is to testify of jesus, just like paul did, just like all the other prophets and apostles in scriptures who it is written of have seen him did. they're not supposed to hide him under a bush =)

faithful member: prophet, can you tell me about when you first met jesus?

lds prophet: that is much too special to tell you, but i KNOW that he lives.

faithful member: wow, he really MUST have seen jesus!

wake up you guys, seriously.

> And you know this how?

lack of evidence. i cant find anywhere on lds.org where an apostle or prophet in general conference has said "i have seen jesus christ" or anything to that effect. the only thing you'll find is them saying "i know that the savior/jesus/etc lives, by the power of the holy ghost (etc)". they dont say they have seen him, because they havent. but the scriptures are filled with "men of god" who say they have.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

wake up you guys, seriously.

> And you know this how?

lack of evidence and testimony.

Let me get this right. Because they don't come out and say "I saw Jesus" that means that they did not see Jesus.

Wow, that is really really compelling evidence you have there.

BRM basically said that he had seen Jesus. Do you believe his testimony? Something tells me that you don't think that BRM had seen Jesus before he died.

[nickleus]

And you really think an Apostle would put such a sacred experience up on a public forum. The will not share such experiences except in the most sacred and private circumstances

i'll use your own words: "And you know this how?"

please share an experience, if its not too sacred... =)