Was BOM wrong?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Even that spurious introduction makes no claim it was practiced since 1831, only that Joseph supposedly "knew of the practice".

CFR on the handwriting thing.

Well if he knew of the practice that means it was being practiced.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Just read the link.

And, yes, I believe they lied about Emma. But you will read that.

That's fine, I guess can't see someone making up over a decade of history about a man and selling it to the people he lived with and served all those years, and it working. I don't doubt your faith only the feasibility of what your presenting.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Well if he knew of the practice that means it was being practiced.

Just because the LDS introduction to the Section says he knew of (implying accepted) the practice since 1831, doesn't mean it true. The LDS introduction to the Book of Mormon used to read that the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors of the Native Americans"- but it didn't make it so- as the LDS Church rightfully acknowledged by changing the intro.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

That's fine, I guess can't see someone making up over a decade of history about a man and selling it to the people he lived with and served all those years, and it working. I don't doubt your faith only the feasibility of what your presenting.

Men will do and say just about anything to justify their actions, especially those in positions of power.

And it didn't completely work, there were many who did not follow Brigham to Utah, or follow his doctrines, but who waited patiently for the prophesied coming forth of Joseph III. Which prophecy was fulfilled every wit.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at "RLDS" claims and history.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I would recommend this book, after you read the "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" pages...

http://restorationbookstore.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ppc01001&Category_Code=01a

It is about a convert from England who obediently went to Utah, experienced what was really going on. Went to the midwest and eventually joined the RLDS Church. It will give you a new insight into things.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Just because the LDS introduction to the Section says he knew of (implying accepted) the practice since 1831, doesn't mean it true. The LDS introduction to the Book of Mormon used to read that the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors of the Native Americans"- but it didn't make it so- as the LDS Church rightfully acknowledged by changing the intro.

Look I understand you don't accept D&C 132, that is fine, but without D&C 132 you have not eternal marriage, you have no exaltation, it is a core principal of the LDS faith, I understand that those who stayed behind in Illinois and later moved back to independence hold different beliefs. I just fail to see how any man, reinvents over a decade of a man's life and sells it to the people who lived with him. If it is all a forgery there would be no LDS Church, they all would of rejected Brigham Young and followed Emma and the others who later formed the RLDS under Joseph III.

You need some out of the park, slam dunk, physical evidence to convince me that almost 1/4th of Joseph Smith's recorded life is a master forgery of Brigham Young and other church leaders. I just can't conceive such a thing happening, I know that it is possible (since pretty much anything is possible) but that is a big accusation and I need big solid convincing evidence to support this.

I just don't see the mountain of evidence needed to support the claims made, I think other RLDS have a far more reasonable and realistic argument, when they say that Joseph just lost his way, fell as a Prophet, and made Polygamy against the will of God.

I don't accept either claims, but at least saying it happened and Joseph did it mistakenly and against the will of God, make sense. I just don't see a single drop of reality in your position.

I need lots of evidence, physical evidence that shows within a reasonable doubt that from 1831 to 1844 the records kept of Joseph Smith's life by the LDS Church are a complete forgery.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Men will do and say just about anything to justify their actions, especially those in positions of power.

And it didn't completely work, there were many who did not follow Brigham to Utah, or follow his doctrines, but who waited patiently for the prophesied coming forth of Joseph III. Which prophecy was fulfilled every wit.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at "RLDS" claims and history.

I know the LDS claims and history, I have looked at the Community of Christ very in depth. I don't see how they have the priesthood of God, personally. Joseph gave the Keys to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles a month before he was martyred only the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had the authority to call the next President of the Church.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Look I understand you don't accept D&C 132, that is fine, but without D&C 132 you have not eternal marriage, you have no exaltation, it is a core principal of the LDS faith, I understand that those who stayed behind in Illinois and later moved back to independence hold different beliefs. I just fail to see how any man, reinvents over a decade of a man's life and sells it to the people who lived with him. If it is all a forgery there would be no LDS Church, they all would of rejected Brigham Young and followed Emma and the others who later formed the RLDS under Joseph III.

You need some out of the park, slam dunk, physical evidence to convince me that almost 1/4th of Joseph Smith's recorded life is a master forgery of Brigham Young and other church leaders. I just can't conceive such a thing happening, I know that it is possible (since pretty much anything is possible) but that is a big accusation and I need big solid convincing evidence to support this.

I just don't see the mountain of evidence needed to support the claims made, I think other RLDS have a far more reasonable and realistic argument, when they say that Joseph just lost his way, fell as a Prophet, and made Polygamy against the will of God.

I don't accept either claims, but at least saying it happened and Joseph did it mistakenly and against the will of God, make sense. I just don't see a single drop of reality in your position.

I need lots of evidence, physical evidence that shows within a reasonable doubt that from 1831 to 1844 the records kept of Joseph Smith's life by the LDS Church are a complete forgery.

You have never actually looked at the evidence. Have you read?

Early History of the Reorganization

Autobiography of Elder Charles Derry

Differences the Persist

Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy

etc..

etc..

etc...

You can't see evidence if you are not willing to look at it.

You have the resources available to you. You can actually research and find things are not as cut and dry as you would like to believe or you can blindly accept the history as given to you by your church and it's "faith-promoting" historians. The responsibility is on you, and you cannot blame anyone but yourself if you have accepted error. Good luck in your research or in your retrenching, not matter which you decide.

[LDS Guy 1986]

You have never actually looked at the evidence. Have you read?

Early History of the Reorganization

Autobiography of Elder Charles Derry

Differences the Persist

Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy

etc..

etc..

etc...

You can't see evidence if you are not willing to look at it.

You have the resources available to you. You can actually research and find things are not as cut and dry as you would like to believe or you can blindly accept the history as given to you by your church and it's "faith-promoting" historians. The responsibility is on you, and you cannot blame anyone but yourself if you have accepted error. Good luck in your research or in your retrenching, not matter which you decide.

Books written by other people are not evidence, I need physical evidence, Joseph's diary entries, eyewitness statements, actual "real" records that BY and the Church Leadership replaced with 13 years of fake records.

Things that can be authenticated and verified that dispute the 13 years that you accuse Brigham Young of rewriting. Books are opinions, and have no weight without evidence, I need evidence not books. I am sure I can find just as many books to refute your books.

Anyhow this is way off topic, this is something that needs to move to a PM or a new thread!

[volgadon]

Jewish hatred of Christians goes back to the very beginning of Jewish-Chritsitan relations. Acts describes numerous persecutions and murder of Christians.

Numerous? I am aware of the murder of Stephen, and several attempts on Paul's life.

At some point Jewish Christians were formally excommunicated and expelled from synagogues. (Messianic Jews are expelled from Orthodox synagogues today as well.)

The formal excommunication does not seem to have been until the late Roman, or the Byzantine eras. Messianic Jews are considered meshumadim, IE those who abandoned the covenant. Christianity hardly treats its own apostates better.

In the original form of the birkat ha-minim ("blessing on the heretics," which is actually a curse) in the Amidah pray which Jews are to say daily ritually curses the no?erim [Christians] and the minim (heretics). This curse was established long before Christian persecutions of Jews began.

Do you mean the version found in the Cairo Genizah? If so, what evidence do you have that it predates the Byzantine era and Christian pressure and persecution of the Jews?

Now, certainly many Christians have treated Jews abominably, and I'm not trying to legitimize such persecutions. On the other hand, whenever they had the chance, many Jews have treated Christians just as abominably.

A few have, many have not. This still doesn't answer my question to Zerinus.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Numerous? I am aware of the murder of Stephen,

Stephen was not murdered but martyred, as well as Paul.

[volgadon]

Stephen was not murdered but martyred, as well as Paul.

He was murdered, not executed. Paul though was martyred, exceuted by the Romans.

[LDS Guy 1986]

He was murdered, not executed. Paul though was martyred, exceuted by the Romans.

It appears you do not know the definition of martyr:

mar

[volgadon]

And he was murdered, that was how he became a martyr. Some martyrs are murdered, some are executed, others take their own life. You are attempting to nitpick this remark of mine, all the while without admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that I was speaking earlier of the holocaust.

[LeSellers]

Just because the LDS introduction to the Section says he knew of (implying accepted) the practice since 1831, doesn't mean it true. The LDS introduction to the Book of Mormon used to read that the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors of the Native Americans"- but it didn't make it so- as the LDS Church rightfully acknowledged by changing the intro.

Your position is untenable in light of deep investigation. I wish "Uncle Dale" would repost a message he sent to the old alt.mormon forum. He, too, rejects plural marriage and was an RLDS member years back. But, as best I can recall, his words were something to the effect that the RLDS leadership lied to them in saying that Joseph did not practice plural marriage because he did.

Moreover, we have Emma's actions, and the testimony of many of those plural wives. We have the actions and words of Joseph's enemies who tell us that one of the reasons for their work of murder was Joseph's teaching and practice of plural marriage.

Finally, while you claim that Jacob 2 makes plurality of wives an eternal abomination, you have no credible response to the verse that says God can (and, implicitly, does) command His people to practice the principle to attain His goal of "bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

Lehi

[LDS Guy 1986]

And he was murdered, that was how he became a martyr. Some martyrs are murdered, some are executed, others take their own life. You are attempting to nitpick this remark of mine, all the while without admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that I was speaking earlier of the holocaust.

I am not wrong the only time Jews were give badges to wear was in the holocaust, the moving them from there homes, giving them badges, ect was a direct reference to the holocaust. If you deny what you said that is up to you but the proof is in the posts.

[Calm]

I am not wrong the only time Jews were give badges to wear was in the holocaust, the moving them from there homes, giving them badges, ect was a direct reference to the holocaust. If you deny what you said that is up to you but the proof is in the posts.

one example....

http://www.geschicht...im-MA-ENGL.html

Jewish marks in England: Badges and hats since 1215 - tabula since 1253

[since 1215: Strong regulations in England with the hat - rich Jews can ransom from the rules]

<ENGLAND.

In England papal influence was at this time particularly strong. The recommendations of the Lateran Council were repeated in an order of March 30, 1218 [[and the Jewish hat was introduced]]. However, before long the wealthier Jews, and later on entire communities, paid to be exempted, notwithstanding the reiteration of the order by the diocesan council of Oxford in 1222.

[1253: Badge and tabula order]

In 1253, however, the obligation to wear the badge was renewed in the period of general reaction, by Henry III, who ordered the tabula to be worn in a prominent position.

[1275: Yellow badge order in tablet form]

In the statutum de Judeismo of 1275, Edward I stipulated the color of the badge and increased the size. A piece of yellow taffeta, six fingers long and three broad, was to be worn above the heart by every Jew over the age of seven years. In England, the badge took the form of the Tablets of the Law, considered to symbolize the Old Testament, in which form it is to be seen in various caricatures and portraits of medieval English Jews.> (col. 64)

[Lareliw]

I have to admit I am now more confused than when I asked the question But that is ok, just more to learn!

The simple answer?

Precisely because I DO believe in the Book of Mormon.

[volgadon]

I am not wrong the only time Jews were give badges to wear was in the holocaust,

You are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge

http://books.google.com/books?id=cu_fnfmOHu4C&pg=PA49&dq=abrahams+jewish+medieval&hl=en&ei=KRJnTaacH4aCsQOo9OGmBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=jeiwsh%20badge&f=false

the moving them from there homes, giving them badges, ect was a direct reference to the holocaust. If you deny what you said that is up to you but the proof is in the posts.

No, it was not. Ghettos and expulsions were part of the experience of Jews in the Medieval era, as were badges.

[volgadon]

I think there is a lack of clarity in some of the concepts being discussed here. First, Jews have always expected and hoped for the coming of the Messiah--which is mentioned in the Amida prayer. Simply having Jewish groups with specified Messianic expectations cannot fulfill the prophecy of the BOM, since there have always been such groups. There have also been dozens of Jewish false messiahs. (Lenowitz The Jewish Messiahs (Oxford, 1998)) throughout the ages, and there are contemporary false messiahs (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe Schneerson (Wolfson, Open Secret (2009)). When Christ warns against "false christs/messiahs" (Mt. 24:24, Mk. 13:22), he is referring to precisely these false Jewish messiahs. False messianic expectations cannot fulfill a prophecy of coming to the true Messiah.

When the BOM mentions Christ/Messiah, it means the real Messiah, Jesus. It does not mean post-Jesus Jewish messianic expectations/claimants. Therefore, the fact that the Jews continue to look for a post-Jesus Messiah cannot fulfill the BOM prophetic expectations. To fulfill the prophecy they must come unto Jesus, not expect a Messiah other than Jesus. I think it is confusing to conflate these two ideas.

Except that the examples I've mentioned above haven't been of followers of false messiah's, in fact they weren't following any specific individual as messiah, but doing what they could to prepare things for the messiah, even though they did not realise who he was. The process of course is not complete and will culminate with the acceptance of Christ in the second coming. Also, the false messiahs Christ reffers to may include several of these Jewish messiahs, yet to claim that he is referring to precisely these false Jewish messiahs and not any others, Christian, Muslim or not, is a stretch.

And before you say that Judah ha-Hasid was a follower of Sabbatai Tzvi, that has actually never been shown to be so. Influenced, yes, but he wasn't Hayim Malach.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have to admit I am now more confused than when I asked the question But that is ok, just more to learn!

Perhaps this will help?

http://www.centerpla...rt%20A.%20Smith)

There are more articles there at centerplace.org also.

[Bill Hamblin]

Numerous? I am aware of the murder of Stephen, and several attempts on Paul's life.

The formal excommunication does not seem to have been until the late Roman, or the Byzantine eras. Messianic Jews are considered meshumadim, IE those who abandoned the covenant. Christianity hardly treats its own apostates better.

Do you mean the version found in the Cairo Genizah? If so, what evidence do you have that it predates the Byzantine era and Christian pressure and persecution of the Jews?

A few have, many have not. This still doesn't answer my question to Zerinus.

As I said, there were numerous persecutions. There were also murders. The martyrdom of James at the Temple Mount is another example. Jesus is another. Paul is a third.

Whether the excommunication of Christian Jews was formal or not, Christians were widely expelled from the synagogues, which is practical excommunication.

I do refer to the Cairo Genizah. IIRC it is the oldest surviving manuscript version. There were, of course different versions at different times. The Talmud says the birkat ha-minim goes back to Yavneh. While the concept of minim could have included non-Christians, it certainly included Christians. There are references in Eusebius and others to Jews ritually cursing Christians in their prayers.

The only point is that Jewish hatred of Christians is not something that arose only as a defensive response to persecution by Christians. Jews initially hated and persecuted Christians because they were viewed as blasphemers and heretics, who were to be expelled from the synagogues and could be executed for blasphemy. When Jews had the majority and had political power they persecuted Christians just as vilely as Christians later persecuted Jews. This is not a one way street. Both sides were equally to blame for the animosity, hatred and persecution. Many on both sides behaved badly, while, conversely, many on both sides behaved well. The situation was not good Jews vs. bad Christians. It was often bad Jews vs. bad Christians. And it was often good Jews and good Christians treating each other well.

[Bill Hamblin]

Except that the examples I've mentioned above haven't been of followers of false messiah's, in fact they weren't following any specific individual as messiah, but doing what they could to prepare things for the messiah, even though they did not realise who he was. The process of course is not complete and will culminate with the acceptance of Christ in the second coming. Also, the false messiahs Christ reffers to may include several of these Jewish messiahs, yet to claim that he is referring to precisely these false Jewish messiahs and not any others, Christian, Muslim or not, is a stretch.

And before you say that Judah ha-Hasid was a follower of Sabbatai Tzvi, that has actually never been shown to be so. Influenced, yes, but he wasn't Hayim Malach.

When I said Jesus had them precisely in mind, I did not mean exclusively. Rather that the past false Jewish Messiahs (whom almost all Jews now accept as false Messiahs) were precisely the kind of false Messiahs he was referring to. People who falsely claim to be the Messiah.

As I noted, the BOM says explicitly that the Jews must believe that Jesus is the Messiah (not that there will be some other Messiah) before the prophesied gathering of Israel. The texts seem absolutely clear on the matter.

[volgadon]

As I said, there were numerous persecutions. There were also murders. The martyrdom of James at the Temple Mount is another example. Jesus is another. Paul is a third.

Actually, Jesus is an example of certain political-religious leaders getting rid of someone specific whom they consider a threat. James falls into the same category, and this is not found in the book of Acts is it, unless Josephus was appended. OTOH, the position has been advanced that the passages in Matthew's gosepl such as "brood of vipers", were part of the Matthean community's vicious polemic for religious supremity in the Jewish community of Palestine.

Whether the excommunication of Christian Jews was formal or not, Christians were widely expelled from the synagogues, which is practical excommunication.

And many at the time of Acts weren't.

I do refer to the Cairo Genizah. IIRC it is the oldest surviving manuscript version. There were, of course different versions at different times. The Talmud says the birkat ha-minim goes back to Yavneh.

Yet what is there linking the Byzantine-era form of the curse with the Talmud's late report of R. Samuel the Small establishing a curse against heretics? BTW the talmudic report doesn't say that he originated the curse.

YOur argument, IIRC, was that the form in the Genizah predated Christian pressure on and persecution of Christians.

While the concept of minim could have included non-Christians, it certainly included Christians. There are references in Eusebius and others to Jews ritually cursing Christians in their prayers.

The fact that the Genizah form of the curse includes Christians in addition to minim shows that the two groups weren't synonymous. In other words all Christians were minim, but not all minim were Christians, or even primarily Christians.

The only point is that Jewish hatred of Christians is not something that arose only as a defensive response to persecution by Christians. Jews initially hated and persecuted Christians because they were viewed as blasphemers and heretics, who were to be expelled from the synagogues and could be executed for blasphemy. When Jews had the majority and had political power they persecuted Christians just as vilely as Christians later persecuted Jews. This is not a one way street. Both sides were equally to blame for the animosity, hatred and persecution. Many on both sides behaved badly, while, conversely, many on both sides behaved well. The situation was not good Jews vs. bad Christians. It was often bad Jews vs. bad Christians. And it was often good Jews and good Christians treating each other well.

Let me restate the comment that brought on your replies. What in the majority of Jewish experience with Christianity would have made it more appealing for them to come unto Christ?

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually, Jesus is an example of certain political-religious leaders getting rid of someone specific whom they consider a threat. James falls into the same category, and this is not found in the book of Acts is it, unless Josephus was appended. OTOH, the position has been advanced that the passages in Matthew's gosepl such as "brood of vipers", were part of the Matthean community's vicious polemic for religious supremity in the Jewish community of Palestine.

I'm confused. Are you saying the political-religious leaders who killed Jesus and James weren't Jews? Some Jews accepted the followers of Jesus. Some Jews ignored the followers of Jesus. Some Jews rejected the followers of Jesus. Some Jews persecuted the followers of Jesus. The fact that some early Christian writers engaged in "vicious polemics" does not demonstrate that some Jews did not persecute or try to murder Christians.

And many at the time of Acts weren't.

Yes. Many Jews at the time of Acts became Christians. And many Jews at the time of of Acts persecuted Christians and expelled them from the synagogues. The fact that ALL Jews were not anti-Christians does not demonstrate that many Jews were not Anti-Christian.

Yet what is there linking the Byzantine-era form of the curse with the Talmud's late report of R. Samuel the Small establishing a curse against heretics? BTW the talmudic report doesn't say that he originated the curse.

YOur argument, IIRC, was that the form in the Genizah predated Christian pressure on and persecution of Christians.

All the evidence points to the existence of the curse in the late first or early second century. The curse was against minim/heretics. Christians were clearly considered minim/heretics by early sages. The specifics of the curse varied through time. The substance of the curse did not. The fact that the curse was not solely against the Christians did not mean the Christians were not included in the curse. I didn't say R. Samuel created the curse. I said the Birkat Minim--in whatever form--includes a curse against Christian minim/heretics, sometimes explicitly, and sometimes as part of a broader cateogry.

The fact that the Genizah form of the curse includes Christians in addition to minim shows that the two groups weren't synonymous. In other words all Christians were minim, but not all minim were Christians, or even primarily Christians.

Well, I never said otherwise. I agree. All Christians are minim by Rabbinic interpretation, but not all minim were Christians. On the other hand, all minim--including Christian minim--are cursed in the Birkat Minim. That's all I ever said.

Let me restate the comment that brought on your replies. What in the majority of Jewish experience with Christianity would have made it more appealing for them to come unto Christ?

I agree that many Christians (not all) treated Jews badly throughout the ages--and some still do. Likewise, many Jews (not all) treated Christians badly when they had a chance--and some still do. (On the other hand, some Jews did convert to Christianity in the Middle Ages.) All of this is irrelevant. The fact that Jews had good reason to hate Christians from the fourth century on does not demonstrate that Jewish anti-Christian polemics did not originate a century or two before the Christians had the political power and opportunity to persecute and abuse the Jews. Nor does it demonstrate that Jews did not persecute and abuse Christians when they had the opportunity--which was relatively rarely, since they were generally in the minority and had limited political power. On the other hand, look, for example, at the massacre of the Christians in Najran by the Jewish Yemenite King Dhu Nuwas around 520. He killed everyone who would not renounce Christianity.