Hamba Tuhan Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Are you really trying to convince us polygamy is all about roses and kitty cats?Not entirely.Are you really trying to convince us it was all about thistles and biting flies?
oats Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Monogamy is all about roses and kitty cats from what I hear.
Hughes Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Call for Proof Another call for Proof ...?As for innocent, I don't think he was, since he lied about other things, there's no reason to think that he didn't continue. As for being used by Satan, that's rather obvious. Anyone who claims that the Bible contradicts what the Holy Spirit is saying is obviously lying. And Satan is still using his servants to persecute the Prophet, though long dead.Interesting. He dead, but Satan is persecuting him? Wow. Actually, I think that Joseph Smith will be suffering for all the pain he inflicted on people as the result of his teachings and actions. I'm sure there were others, but they are equally insignificant.By that logic, his Master, Jesus, also produced bad fruit when he was put on trial, condemned by the mob and crucified.Insignificant is your opinion. What about the countless people who are hurt or damaged by his teachings? When people realize that what they had believed for their whole lives was a lie, the pain is overwhelming. Insignificant? I don't think so. And yes that's my opinion.
SilverKnight Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 It has recently been emphasized in connection with Brother Joseph that "By their fruits ye shall know them." I thought it would be fun to try to find out what fruits the Prophet has produced.Given that Joseph Smith is a very polarizing figure, this thread will likely degenerate quickly.You've pretty much opened up a shooting gallery for critics to list what they hate most about Joseph Smith.Personally, I think Joseph Smith produced many good fruits, and a few quite rotten ones.
Hughes Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Not entirely.Are you really trying to convince us it was all about thistles and biting flies?The pain of polygamy isn't hard to find or see. If you are a woman, how would you feel if your husband wanted other wives? Flip it around a bit. If you are a man, how would you feel if your wife wanted other husbands? How would you feel sleeping alone at night knowing what is happening?
SilverKnight Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Given that Joseph Smith is a very polarizing figure, this thread will likely degenerate quickly.Looks like it's already happened.The pain of polygamy isn't hard to find or see. If you are a woman, how would you feel if your husband wanted other wives? Flip it around a bit. If you are a man, how would you feel if your wife wanted other husbands? How would you feel sleeping alone at night knowing what is happening?We now have another of the countless 'Polygamy Sucks' threads.
Hestia Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 As for being used by Satan, that's rather obvious. Anyone who claims that the Bible contradicts what the Holy Spirit is saying is obviously lying. You keep forgetting whose site you are privileged to visit. You can leave the thread for such slanderous remarks. As for the rest veer away from polygamy or this will be shut down.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Honestly? That is the only thing you can think of that were bad fruits? Yep, that's most of what I see as the bad fruitsWhy do you think that he was in a trial before he supposedly saw a vision? Learn the facts, he was accused never convicted of anything, in fact it is widely disputed if the accusation ever got to trial. Why do you think many opposed him when he was held in Jail before his death?Because like all Prophets people will reject him and seek to end his life, it was the same for Paul, Peter, and many other prophets of God.
Jaybear Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Learn the facts, he was accused never convicted of anything, in fact it is widely disputed if the accusation ever got to trial. Do you honestly believe that Smith could locate treasure buried deep in the earth by looking at a stone in his hat? It is alleged that he allowed a gullible old man to believe that he had such a skill, and charged him money for his "talents." If true that would be considered fraud, or theft by deception ... unless of course you have some reason to believe that there are special rocks that allow special people to find buried treasure in such a manner.
Nathair/|\ Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 Do you honestly believe that Smith could locate treasure buried deep in the earth by looking at a stone in his hat? It is alleged that he allowed a gullible old man to believe that he had such a skill, and charged him money for his "talents." If true that would be considered fraud, or theft by deception ... unless of course you have some reason to believe that there are special rocks that allow special people to find buried treasure in such a manner.The short answer is: he may well have been able to. If you want to start another thread, I'd be happy to explain my reasoning to you.
TAO Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 As for innocent, I don't think he was, since he lied about other things, there's no reason to think that he didn't continue. Abraham lied as well. But we think Abraham is a very uprightly person... so no, that will not work. Just because someone lied once doesn't make them non-uprightly, that it doesn't =/. Although it should be avoided as much as possible.As for being used by Satan, that's rather obvious. Anyone who claims that the Bible contradicts what the Holy Spirit is saying is obviously lying.I remember going over and showing you just how much of the Bible is missing. Thus, the Bible is not in it's original state, and it cannot be relied upon in some cases as well as the Holy Spirit can.You could talk to BCSpace about some of the contradictions in the Bible that Joseph cleared up if you would like... he knows quite a bit about that sorta stuff.Nah, the Bible isn't perfect in and of itself. The spirit is, but the Bible needs the spirit in order to be of use... without the Spirit it is all useless.Best Wishes,TAO
Deborah Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Abraham lied as well. Most people refer to Abraham but how many realize that Isaac did the same thing. In Genesis 26 we read: 7And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon. 8And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife. 9And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her.God blessed Isaac and was made wealthy. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that lying to protect ones own or another's life is not the same as being a Liar in scriptural terms, which defines liars as "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4) and "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:24.
Tango Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Your chronology is off."Supposed" First Vision: 1820Bainbridge "trial," which was actually an examination: 1826.What came before what?Many what? You mean, many murderers?The question rather answers itself, doesn't it?Regards,PahoranActually this is even WORSE, because it is a known FACT that Joseph Smith was engaged in magic stone in hats AFTER the so called first Vision, which means Joseph Smith was either a LIAR or God was. And we already know Joseph Smith was a FRAUD.
TAO Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 which means Joseph Smith was either a LIAR or God was.CFR. And we already know Joseph Smith was a FRAUD.CFR. Can't people start saying 'it's my opinion that' or 'I believe' or something along those lines... the way that it is stated is misguiding.
kolipoki09 Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Actually this is even WORSE, because it is a known FACT that Joseph Smith was engaged in magic stone in hats AFTER the so called first Vision, which means Joseph Smith was either a LIAR or God was. And we already know Joseph Smith was a FRAUD.Does capitalizing words make them more true? I smell a ban coming...some way, somehow.
Pahoran Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Actually this is even WORSE, because it is a known FACT that Joseph Smith was engaged in magic stone in hats AFTER the so called first Vision, which means Joseph Smith was either a LIAR or God was.I'm sorry Tango, but your CONCLUSION does not follow FROM anything else you've WRITTEN.What was it THAT Joseph said, OR that God said, THAT means one or the other of them was LYING if he went to work for JOSIAH Stowell?And we already know Joseph Smith was a FRAUD.You might "know" that; but I'm afraid I DON'T.Unlike YOU, Joseph Smith demonstrated the sincerity of HIS religious convictions by dedicating his LIFE to them; usually to his CONSIDERABLE inconvenience, often to real SUFFERING, and ultimately to his DEATH.Which is, to say the least, not consistent with the "FRAUD" theory.The FACT that you are willing to THROW out such a BASELESS accusation so CASUALLY demonstrates that, whatever else Joseph was, he was certainly BETTER than you.Regards,Pahoran
kolipoki09 Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 This is the same game Tango has played since he first arrived here (which may be the purpose of his pseudonym all along). He's here to ruffle feathers, not make substantial contributions to the discussion. It doesn't matter what side of the issue one is on - when behavior like Tango's is made evident, I am convinced that Goethe had it right all along. "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." I've known critics who don't believe in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, but who nonetheless remain civil in discussing the relative issues. If only Tango would seek to follow that example...In fact, if the world were full of people like Chris Smith and Jan Shipps, as opposed to the regurgitated minions of Hulse and Decker, I'd be a much happier man. But alas, we have an imperfect world. "What is not started today is never finished tomorrow."
Jaybear Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 The short answer is: he may well have been able to. If you want to start another thread, I'd be happy to explain my reasoning to you.Thanks. Anything other than a unequivocal "yes, of course he could locate buried treasure with his stone" I will take as an implicit acknowledgment that you believe he may very well have deliberately deceived that old man.
Hestia Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Tango is banned from this thread for contributing nothing but snide remarks.
Deborah Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Anything other than a unequivocal "yes, of course he could locate buried treasure with his stone" I will take as an implicit acknowledgment that you believe he may very well have deliberately deceived that old man.You certainly assume a lot and demonstrate how the biases one comes with determine how he will interpret the evidence.
Nathair/|\ Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 Thanks. Anything other than a unequivocal "yes, of course he could locate buried treasure with his stone" I will take as an implicit acknowledgment that you believe he may very well have deliberately deceived that old man.You may assume as you wish, but I find it far more probable that Brother Joseph was a competent scryer than that he was deliberately deceptive.
Minos Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 This is a board that relies on Mormon participation. We don't expect Mormons to come to a site that maligns their leaders. Those who won't engage in civil discussion about any religion's leaders aren't going to be allowed on this board. When disagreement or disapproval turns to mockery and slurs posters will be banned permanently.
Jaybear Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 You certainly assume a lot and demonstrate how the biases one comes with determine how he will interpret the evidence.My assumption is a deduction grounded in simple logic. If one merely believes that "its possible" that Smith could have such a talent, then one must by necessity also believe that its possible, even if less likely, that Smith mislead the old man. As for your claim of my bias factoring into my opinion. You are simply wrong, at least in this instance. I don't believe anyone has the ability find treasure in such a fashion. The claim is scientifically impossible. Doesn't matter to me who makes the claim. Whether it be Smith, or my own son in law. You may assume as you wish, but I find it far more probable that Brother Joseph was a competent scryer than that he was deliberately deceptive.Well as a matter of fact, I assumed that you would consider it far more likely that Smith actually has such a talent, than he was operating a con.
Pahoran Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 My assumption is a deduction grounded in simple logic. If one merely believes that "its possible" that Smith could have such a talent, then one must by necessity also believe that its possible, even if less likely, that Smith mislead the old man.In order for Joseph to have "mislead"[sic] anyone, he would first have had to make representations of some kind to him; correct?I mean, you cannot mislead someone unless you are actually attempting to lead them; right?Therefore: Call for references that Joseph made any representations of any kind to Josiah Stowell about any treasure-finding abilities.Regards,Pahoran
Deborah Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 My assumption is a deduction grounded in simple logic. If one merely believes that "its possible" that Smith could have such a talent, then one must by necessity also believe that its possible, even if less likely, that Smith mislead the old man. Even so, if he believes he can do it and if the other party believes it there is no deceit or misleading intended.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.