More Misrepresentations Of Mormonism By The Irr

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Yet you allege at most two "falsehoods" in the entirety of your post. Let's look at these.

Whats the ole' Anti-Mormon canard.... It only takes one for the story plot and narrator to become suspect.

1. You argue that "the Integrity of any man has nothing what so ever to do with truth claims of a mans religion." Your evidence for this claim is bordering on the silly side:

a. People made false accusations against Jesus Christ. (Um, Zak, they were irrelevant to the claims he made about himself because the accusations were false.)

And much of what people said of Joseph Smith and Early Mormons were false as well. Like the generation of Jesus' times they told Ole' Joe Smith the Superstitious Palmyra Redneck to dance and boy did he ever.

b. Moses killed a man and escaped into the wilderness. (His call to be a prophet came much later and had no connection to the earlier event.)

Didn't God hatch a plan with him to financially bankrupt Egypt and tople the world power?

Hey Pharoah we want to go into the desert 3 days journey and sacrifice to our God. That was the public story Moses told Pharoah. But they where going to sacrifice Pharoahs abominations and that would be seen as an act of treason and the ultimate disrespect to the sovereign state of Egypt. Pharoah knew something was up thats why he kept stalling making sure they left something behind so they would be sure and come back. Finally after being strong armed into it Pharoah relents and lets them go... "To Sacrifice".

Then they ask to "Borrow" gold silver and Jewels and fine clothing to go present themselves before their God with and the Egyptians "lend" it to them and they go... to "Sacrifice".

Once Pharaoh's spies find out that instead of sacrificing in the desert they have high tailed into the sunset he sends his chariots after them to recover the stolen goods. Only to end up drowned in the Red sea.

c. Abraham lied about Sarah being his sister. (Yep, that was bad. No one claims a prophet has to be sinless. Funny, though, that you mention this, since the Book of Abraham absurdly claims that Abraham's deceit was God's idea.)

You do know that the Dead Sea Scrolls which speak of the life of Abraham repeat this "absurdity" of God telling him to lie?

[say to them] of me, 'He is my brother,' and because of you I shall live, and because of your my life shall be saved...' And Sarai wept that night on account of my words..."[1]

Genesis Apocryphon - Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin Press, 1997), 453–454.

Read it in context here: (10th Paragraph down)

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Dead_Sea_Scrolls/genesis_apocryphon.htm

How did Joseph produce this authentic ancient detail when this text was not available until 1948?

You went on to claim, "The doctrine is what needs to be tested." I agree. But one of the doctrines that needs to be tested is that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration, the first man in seventeen centuries that was pious enough to ask God for wisdom about choosing a church, the only man in history ever to see God the Father, and a man that was so important that the LDS scriptures claim that Joseph has done more for the salvation of the world than anyone besides Christ. Examining Joseph's life to see if he was a sincere if sinful fellow, or if he was a scoundrel, is quite relevant to testing that doctrine.

Joseph wasn't the "only man in history ever" to have seen God the Father. Christ has seen him too.

John 6:46

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Was Jesus merely a pious fraud?

You wrote:

Hmm, perhaps you missed what the Bible has to say about such men as Enoch, Joseph (the Genesis patriarch), Joshua, Daniel, Ezra, or women such as Naomi, Elizabeth, Mary the mother of Christ, or Priscilla--just to name a few.

I can understand a true-blue Mormon faithfully defending Joseph Smith's reputation and arguing that he wasn't the worst character in history ever used by God, but when you claim that Joseph Smith compares favorably to everyone in the Bible except Christ you lose all credibility with non-Mormons (and not a few Mormons) familiar with the facts.

Lets be resonable Rob and compare apples with apples. How much of the lives of some of these people do we really have?

Elizabeth (6 Months during and after a pregnancy)

Priscilla (7 passing mentions in the Bible is hardly enough for us to evaluate her Character by and that from an adoring fan)

Mary (The child Bride of a 90 year old carpenter, who people said was pregnant out of wedlock much of what was said of her and Joseph was just as untrue)

Enoch (Not much to Evaluate him by: Gen. 5:18–24; Luke 3:37; Heb. 11:5; Jude 1:14; I'm sure theres some juicy fodder we can find on his early life in the Apocrypha or from some of his Neighbors).

Joseph (Divined with a tea cup, Married an Egyptian, Ezra would have made him divorce)

Joshua (Joshua you are kidding right, He makes MMM look like a walk in the park)

Daniel (Dan 9 - Thats a pretty long list of sins he's repenting for)

Ezra (Israels grandest divorce lawyer)

Lets continue...

Noah (AA anyone?)

David (Murder, Adultery, Polygamy, shed too much blood and couldn't build the temple)

Solomon (700+ Wives and Concubines)

Naomi (Let her sons marry Moabites, A big No No for Israelites, Ezra would have made them Divorce)

Another Instresting thing: Moabites were supposedly never to be allowed into the congregation of the Lord "Forever". (Nehemiah 13:1)

If God can forgive all that... why not Joseph Smith?

Much of what was said about him was just as slanderous an untrue as the things said about Joseph and Mary or even the Apostle Paul and his various trumped up court cases and acusations of teaching heresy and antinomianism.

2. You object to the statement that Joseph had repeated sexual relations with teenage girls, calling this "a blatant lie." The only plural wife of Joseph Smith that you mention is Helen Mar Kimball. This is hardly enough to justify your conclusion that the article's statement is "a blatant lie." You fail to mention Fanny Alger, Sarah Ann Whitley, Emily Dow Partridge, Lucy Walker, Sarah Lawrence, Maria Lawrence, or Melissa Lott. For each of these seven teenage girls, as I understand it, there is evidence showing a likely or even definite sexual relationship with Joseph Smith.

So much for the "many falsehoods" you claim to have found in this article.

Yes and all of these women claimed to have offspring by JS and everyone that has been DNA tested so far has tested negative. Thats got to speak to something.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zakuska

[zerinus]

1. Do children have different ages of accountability based on their differing levels

of maturity and intelligence?

No. Children become accountable at the age of eight; but I am sure God would still take their tender age into account, and would not hold an 8 year old child as accountable as he would a fully grown adult, especially bearing in mind that children are highly impressionable, and an 8 year old child may commit sins due to the way it was brought up, without knowing any better.

2. The March 2008 edition of Ensign calls Adam and Eve's transgression a sin:

"His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human

family is held responsible for that sin ... while all members of the human family

are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own, they

are not given a reprieve from their own sins unless they pledge faith in Christ ...

and press forward in faithful endurance the remainder of life’s journey" (The

Atonement of Christ, p. 35, subheading "The Gifts of Christ’s Atonement")

http://lds.org/ldsor...a____&hideNav=1

How would Adam and Eve have eaten from the forbidden tree under God's

own terms and conditions and still comply with His commandment?

There are several questions that need to be answered here: (1) What is wrong with knowing good and evil? Would you want to be deprived of your knowledge of good and evil? Do you think God wants you do be? (2) Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place, if He really didn't want Adam and Eve to partake of it? (3) Why did God allow Satan to tempt them to partake of it? (4) What would have happened if Adam and Even had not yielded to the temptation of Satan, and partaken of the fruit; would God have allowed them to remain in that condition for the rest of eternity, or would He have made His own arrangements to partake of the fruit, in His own time and way?

3. Were there any black-skinned Lamanites that did not have the curse?

* * *

Yes. Those of them that repented and became righteous, and no longer believed in the traditions of their fathers, were no longer cursed; although they (or most of them at least) still retained their dark skin color.

4. In the Book of Mormon, is the Aaronic priesthood confined to a specific tribe?

Ordination to a priesthood is mentioned early on in the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 5

:

.

26 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.

.

Jacob 1

:

.

18 For I, Jacob, and my brother Joseph had been consecrated priests and teachers of this people, by the hand of Nephi.

.

Jarom 1

:

.

11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them.

This is most likely to have been some form of the Melchizekek priesthood, rather than Aaronic priesthood.

Edited September 17, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

I see no reason to argue back and forth endlessly over the issue of the moral character of various individuals in the Bible. I will offer one comment. You wrote:

You do know that the Dead Sea Scrolls which speak of the life of Abraham repeat this "absurdity" of God telling him to lie?

[say to them] of me, 'He is my brother,' and because of you I shall live, and because of your my life shall be saved...' And Sarai wept that night on account of my words..."[1]

Genesis Apocryphon - Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin Press, 1997), 453–454.

Read it in context here: (10th Paragraph down)

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Dead_Sea_Scrolls/genesis_apocryphon.htm

I just clicked on that link, and it didn't work. Here is one that does.

I'm a little embarrassed for you. The Genesis Apocryphon says nothing to indicate that the Lord told Abram to lie about Sarai. I read the whole passage in context to make doubly sure. The quotation you provided (above) is Abram talking to Sarai.

You wrote:

How did Joseph produce this authentic ancient detail when this text was not available until 1948?

Your argument is flawed in two respects. First, the Genesis Apocryphon doesn't say what you claim. Second, the Genesis Apocryphon is ancient but it is not giving historically credible, authentic information about Abraham. The fact is that the Genesis Apocryphon dates from roughly 18 centuries or more after the time of Abraham.

On the bright side, the Genesis Apocryphon is about nineteen centuries closer to the time of Abraham than the LDS Book of Abraham.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Regarding the seven teenage girls with whom Joseph Smith reportedly had intimate relations, you wrote:

Yes and all of these women claimed to have offspring by JS and everyone that has been DNA tested so far has tested negative. Thats got to speak to something.

I was not aware that all seven claimed to have children by Joseph Smith.

In order to use DNA to test this claim, we would have to know which persons to test. There are lots of reasons to believe that would be difficult to determine. Plus, even in the 1840s, there were ways of being sexually intimate without producing offspring.

[mfbukowski]

This is not a response to Rob- I am just quoting him

zerinus,

As I said in the other thread (see here), I'm not going to respond point by point to your post here, for three reasons. (1) The article in question is twelve years old and is in the process of being revised.

Of course it's being revised- he's using us to do his proof reading for him! We find what's wrong, give him our best arguments which he can then find what he thinks to be the best counter-argument, and revise his material accordingly.

We are selecting out the worst part of his site- this is pure evolution. The stupid arguments won't survive, and the "fittest" will- and we are helping him!

Can't you guys see that?

What do you get out of helping him? A little ego boost so he looks stupid for 5 minutes here on our board? And then he gets material which will help him lead others astray?

I say that's just plain stupid on our parts!

I say ignore him and let him leave his site as absurd as it is now!

Why should we help him refine his arguments??

[orion88]

1. What would have happened if Adam and Even had not yielded to the temptation of Satan, and partaken of the fruit; would God have allowed them to remain in that condition for the rest of eternity, or would He have made His own arrangements to partake of the fruit, in His own time and way?

2. Ordination to a priesthood is mentioned early on in the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 5

:

.

26 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.

.

Jacob 1

:

.

18 For I, Jacob, and my brother Joseph had been consecrated priests and teachers of this people, by the hand of Nephi.

.

Jarom 1

:

.

11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them.

This is most likely to have been some form of the Melchizekek priesthood, rather than Aaronic priesthood.

1. What do you mean by God making His arrangement for them to parktake of the forbidden

tree?

2. Does this mean there were no Aaronic priests in the Book of Mormon?

Thanks,

Tony

[Zakuska]

I see no reason to argue back and forth endlessly over the issue of the moral character of various individuals in the Bible.

A very wise choice.

As Paul would say:

"yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

Moral Character has nothing what so ever to do with wether a man was called of God or not. God sends who he will to accomplish his purposes... eg Sampson and Porter Rockwell.

I just clicked on that link, and it didn't work.

I did as well but then on the second 404 page it did provide a link and I clicked that and it came up fine. It must have been a cut and paste problem with the forum.

The Genesis Apocryphon

Behold, I thought then within my heartthat conception was due to the Watchers and the Holy Ones and to the Giants and my heart was troubled within me because of this child. Then I, Lamech, approached Bathenosh, my wife, in haste and said to her, "By the Most High, the Great Lord, the King of all the worlds and Ruler of the sons of Heaven, tell me This truthfully and not falsely. Is the seed within you mine?"

Then Bathenosh my wife spoke to me with much heat and said, "O my brother, O my lord, remember my pleasure, the lying together and my soul within its body. And I tell you all things truthful.

My heart was then greatly troubled within me, and when Bathenosh, my wife, saw that my countenance had changed, then she mastered her anger and spoke to me saying, "O my lord, O my brother, remember my pleasure! I swear to you by the Holy Great One, the King of the heavens, that this seed is yours and that this conception is from you. This fruit was planted by you and by no stranger or Watcher or son of Heaven. Why is your countenance thus changed and dismayed, and why is your spirit thus distressed? I speak to you truthfully."

Then I, Lamech, ran to Methuselah my father, and I told him all these things. And I asked him to go to Enoch, his father, for he would surely learn all things from him. For he was beloved, and he shared the lot of the angels, who taught him all things. And when Methuselah heard my words, he went to Enoch, his father, to learn all things truthfully from him.

He went at once to Parwain and he found him there and he said to Enoch, his father, "O my father, O my lord, I say to you, lost you be angry with me 1 conn1 here ...

And I said, "Until now, you have not come to the Holy Mountain."

And I departed and traveled towards the south until I came to Hebron at the time when Hebron was being built; and I dwelt there two years.

Now there was famine in all this land, and hearing that there was prosperity in Egypt I went to the land of Egypt. I came to the river Karmon and crossed the seven branches of the River. We passed through our land and entered the land of the sons of Ham, into the land of Egypt.

And on the night of our entry into Egypt, I, Abram, dreamt a dream; and behold, I saw in my dream a cedar tree and a palm tree. Men came and they sought to cut down the cedar tree and to pull up its roots, leaving the palm tree standing alone. But the palm tree cried out/saying, "Do not cut down this cedar tree, for cursed be he who shall fell it." And the cedar tree was spared because of the palm tree and was not felled.

And during the night I woke from my dream, and I said to Sarai, my wife, "I have dreamt a dream and I am fearful because of this dream." She said to me, "Tell me your dream that I may know it." So I began to tell her this dream and told her the interpretation of the dream: that they will seek to kill me, but will spare you. Say to them of me, 'He is my brother, and because of you I shall live, and because of you my life shall be saved.'"

And Sarai wept that night on account of my words.

Tell us Rob who sends dreams and visions of warning to prophets and gives them the interpretations there of? Didn't Joseph in Egypt say they come from the God of Heaven? Wasn't Joseph the carpenter warned by God in dreams where to go as to avoid the young Jesus being killed by Herod?

God gave him the dream of warning and Abraham interpreted that dream to mean the only way him to survive was for Sarah to lie.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

Regarding the seven teenage girls with whom Joseph Smith reportedly had intimate relations, you wrote:

I was not aware that all seven claimed to have children by Joseph Smith.

In order to use DNA to test this claim, we would have to know which persons to test. There are lots of reasons to believe that would be difficult to determine.

Exactly and historians determined that by logging every one who claimed in signed afidavits they were his offspring. And when the Sorensons research did the DNA test they have all come up negative.

You can read some about the failed DNA testing of identified possible offspring here:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

Back to square one.

Plus, even in the 1840s, there were ways of being sexually intimate without producing offspring.

You sound just like the people who threw Joseph in prison in Egypt after Potifers wife made her sexual advances to him. There are always two sides to every story Rob. Unfortunatley we have to pick and choose which side to beleive.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

This is not a response to Rob- I am just quoting him

Of course it's being revised- he's using us to do his proof reading for him! We find what's wrong, give him our best arguments which he can then find what he thinks to be the best counter-argument, and revise his material accordingly.

We are selecting out the worst part of his site- this is pure evolution. The stupid arguments won't survive, and the "fittest" will- and we are helping him!

Can't you guys see that?

What do you get out of helping him? A little ego boost so he looks stupid for 5 minutes here on our board? And then he gets material which will help him lead others astray?

I say that's just plain stupid on our parts!

I say ignore him and let him leave his site as absurd as it is now!

Why should we help him refine his arguments??

Perhaps we shouldn't feed the trolls?

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps we shouldn't feed the trolls?

Yep- that's essentially what I am saying.

Nobody here is going to be convinced by anything he says anyway- it's not like we're preventing him from spreading his message here. There is really no reason to oppose him except because it is so tempting to get that ego boost because knocking down his points are like shooting fish in a barrel

[Zakuska]

Yep- that's essentially what I am saying.

Nobody here is going to be convinced by anything he says anyway- it's not like we're preventing him from spreading his message here. There is really no reason to oppose him except because it is so tempting to get that ego boost because knocking down his points are like shooting fish in a barrel

No need to sharpen the sickles raised against us, Even thow the sickles are made of limp noodles. I agree.

PS. Thats why I refrained and only listed the first two falsehoods I saw. It only takes one falsehood for something to be suspect.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

I welcome a clarification on your position.

I don't know what kind of clarification you need.

There is nothing wrong with getting paid to represent a position or "promote an agenda"- every salesman, politician, and most clergymen of other churches fit in that category.

He is not here promoting the Evangelical cause, he is paid to tear down someone else's faith. That is what I find reprehensible. If you have no problem with it, that is your privilege. It's the moral position of a paid hit-man, but possibly with eternal consequences.

I could start an anti Evangelical website tomorrow. I personally find their positions ridiculously weak philosophically, but I would never do that- and to get paid for such an evil deed, were I in that position myself- I can't imagine doing that. It is just evil as far as I am concerned.

Believe what you want. I am quite earnest in this. It's just plain wrong to do what he is doing, and I will continue to call it as I see it.

Edited September 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

No need to sharpen the sickles raised against us, Even thow the sickles are made of limp noodles. I agree.

PS. Thats why I refrained and only listed the first two falsehoods I saw. It only takes one falsehood for something to be suspect.

I know- that's what I meant on the other thread, and then he issues a CFR- essentially wanting me to go through his site for him and show him exactly where all the errors are! What's up with that?

It would take a lifetime! It's every other sentence. And then I would have to argue each one with him- while he avoids and says over and over- "It's not a misrepresentation- it's a different interpretation"--?

You can't win- because you tell him what he says is not what we believe - or that it's not doctrine- and then he says it is.

So where does that go? He tells you what you believe- which of course it isn't - and you just get involved in endless discussions which go nowhere.

That's the modus operandi. And during all of it, he is honing his arguments.

Why help him?

[zerinus]

1. What do you mean by God making His arrangement for them to parktake of the forbidden tree?

By all accounts, acquiring a knowledge of good and evil was a necessary part of God's plan in the creation of man. Throughout the scriptures mankind is enjoined to do good and eschew evil. It would be impossible for man to observe those injunctions if he had never known good and evil. So there is no question that it was God's intention from the beginning that mankind should partake of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, otherwise He would not have put the tree in the garden in the first place. So the question is, what would have happened if Adam and Eve had not yielded to temptation and partaken of the fruit? I don't know the answer to that question. All I am saying is that it had to be done, one way or another. What the alternative ways could have been I have no idea.

2. Does this mean there were no Aaronic priests in the Book of Mormon?

We don't know. It has not been revealed. What we do know is that they were ordained to a priesthood from early on; and the most reasonable assumption is that it was some form of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[Vance]

I see no reason to argue back and forth endlessly over the issue of the moral character of various individuals in the Bible.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zakuska]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know! It sounds exactly like the three yappy pups in France that John Taylor sent home whimpering with their tails tucked firmly between their legs.

The Irony is, Rob knows that its an indefensaible position and is afraid (Like the three Frenchies) to actually face the truth. Anything that looks bad for the Bible must be swept under the rug at any cost.

God takes from the base and lowley of the world to confound the proud the scriptures says. Yet Rob and his "research" institute seem to think that Joseph Smith has to measure up to some arbitrary Standard that not even Christs closest friends and relatives could live up to.

Lets take a look at the Moral Character of Samson.

First, he wants to break Gods commandments and mary a Philistine, something that was strickly forbidden for a Nazarite. But what does the scripture say?

Judges 14

1 And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.

2 And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.

3 Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.

4 But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

WHAT?! God wanted Samson to break one of his own commandments!

Latter Samson sleeps with a Prostitute and did that negate his calling?

Nope.

Yet Joseph Smith gets stoned to death for less! Talk about your unequal balances!!!

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

It only takes one falsehood for something to be suspect.

I don't buy that....well, depending on the falsehood. It is too easy to make mistakes. If we don't demand inerrancy of our scriptures, why would we demand it of our critics?

I think it requires a pattern/habit of inaccuracies.

Edited September 17, 2011 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

I don't buy that....well, depending on the falsehood. It is too easy to make mistakes. If we don't demand inerrancy of our scriptures, why would we demand it of our critics?

I think it requires a pattern/habit of inaccuracies.

That was kind of my point Cal. Just turing the ole' Prophet test back on them is all.

We don't demand it but they do, just measuring them with the same ruler they measure us with.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Tell us Rob who sends dreams and visions of warning to prophets and gives them the interpretations there of? Didn't Joseph in Egypt say they come from the God of Heaven? Wasn't Joseph the carpenter warned by God in dreams where to go as to avoid the young Jesus being killed by Herod?

God gave him the dream of warning and Abraham interpreted that dream to mean the only way him to survive was for Sarah to lie.

According to the Genesis Apocryphon, Abraham's interpretation of the dream was, in his words, "that they will seek to kill me, but will spare you." He then went on to ask Sarah to lie about being his sister. Nothing in the dream suggests that such a lie was the only way for Abraham to survive. That was Abraham's own idea, not something revealed in the dream.

Again, we are arguing about the meaning of a text that originated some eighteen centuries after Abraham. It is irrelevant because it does not provide historically reliable information about the real Abraham.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

The Irony is, Rob knows that its an indefensaible position and is afraid (Like the three Frenchies) to actually face the truth.

Baloney. If you're going to bear false witness against me, I might as well call you on it.

God takes from the base and lowley of the world to confound the proud the scriptures says. Yet Rob and his "research" institute seem to think that Joseph Smith has to measure up to some arbitrary Standard that not even Christs closest friends and relatives could live up to.

I find it somewhat amusing, and very telling, that you are so quick to trash the moral character of biblical figures in your zeal to defend Joseph Smith. However, Joseph Smith's moral credibility is only tangentially related to my criticisms of his handling of polygamy. The real issue, in my opinion, is Joseph's prophetic credibility. One of the most damning aspects of the whole polygamy issue is the fact that Joseph Smith lied in scripture and that this scripture was falsified to cover up that fact.

In 1835, Joseph had the following statement on marriage placed in Doctrine & Covenants: “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” Yet Joseph had been engaging in plural marriage for three or four years. The statement no longer appears in D&C, of course.

Joseph deceptively denied being a polygamist as late as a month before he died: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” (History of the Church 6:411; see also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 119).

The evidence shows that Joseph lied to his own church, and even lied in his own scripture, about his polygamy. Is this really to be finessed away as an example of God using humble, ordinary people to do his work?

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

According to the Genesis Apocryphon, Abraham's interpretation of the dream was, in his words, "that they will seek to kill me, but will spare you." He then went on to ask Sarah to lie about being his sister. Nothing in the dream suggests that such a lie was the only way for Abraham to survive. That was Abraham's own idea, not something revealed in the dream.

Lets read this again Rob...

And on the night of our entry into Egypt, I, Abram, dreamt a dream; and behold, I saw in my dream a cedar tree and a palm tree. Men came and they sought to cut down the cedar tree and to pull up its roots, leaving the palm tree standing alone. But the palm tree cried out/saying, "Do not cut down this cedar tree, for cursed be he who shall fell it." And the cedar tree was spared because of the palm tree and was not felled.

And during the night I woke from my dream, and I said to Sarai, my wife, "I have dreamt a dream and I am fearful because of this dream." She said to me, "Tell me your dream that I may know it." So I began to tell her this dream and told her the interpretation of the dream: that they will seek to kill me, but will spare you. Say to them of me, 'He is my brother, and because of you I shall live, and because of you my life shall be saved.'"

And Sarai wept that night on account of my words.

Where did Abraham get the "interpretation" of the dream from Rob? Perhaps the same place Joseph in Egypt got his?

Genesis 40:8

8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Therefore the Interpretation and the inspiration to lie to save his life wasn't from him but else where. If Abraham had of died how would the promise be fullfilled?

Again, we are arguing about the meaning of a text that originated some eighteen centuries after Abraham. It is irrelevant because it does not provide historically reliable information about the real Abraham.

So then by your own admission we can through out the whole OT as unreliable, the DSS being the oldest manuscript copies we have of many of the OT books.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

That was kind of my point Cal. Just turing the ole' Prophet test back on them is all.

We don't demand it but they do, just measuring them with the same ruler they measure us with.

That's what I thought you meant when I first read the phrase in an earlier post, but then you repeated it in another context so I was thinking perhaps I was wrong. On the same page now.

[Calm]

I find it somewhat amusing, and very telling, that you are so quick to trash the moral character of biblical figures in your zeal to defend Joseph Smith.

It's only trashing if he judges Joseph's moral character to be as bad as you judge it. If he thinks Joseph has an overall good character though he made some mistakes, if he compares others to Joseph he is complimenting them.

[Vance]

I find it somewhat amusing, and very telling, that you are so quick to trash the moral character of biblical figures in your zeal to defend Joseph Smith.

I find it somewhat amusing, and very telling, when people are so quick to complain when others don't use the same double standard that they insist upon.

LOL!!!!!!!!

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Baloney. If you're going to bear false witness against me, I might as well call you on it.

I stand corrected... I truely appologize Rob. It appears that you really don't know how indefensable it really is. My mistake.

I find it somewhat amusing, and very telling, that you are so quick to trash the moral character of biblical figures in your zeal to defend Joseph Smith. However, Joseph Smith's moral credibility is only tangentially related to my criticisms of his handling of polygamy. The real issue, in my opinion, is Joseph's prophetic credibility. One of the most damning aspects of the whole polygamy issue is the fact that Joseph Smith lied in scripture and that this scripture was falsified to cover up that fact.

Whats amusing is Peter lied 3 times and even swore up a storm to save his own skin for being brought in on assualt charges, in scripture no less. Shall we disqualify him as a witness of Christ now? He tarnished his prophetic credibility according to you.

Later Paul tells us in Scirpture no less about his little showdown he had with the cowardly Peter, then in turn Peter has a few choice words aimed back at Paul. Do any of these tangenital issues have anything to do with wether these real live sinful Human beings with body parts and passions where really called of God to do his work?

None of this effects his Prophetic calling.

In 1835, Joseph had the following statement on marriage placed in Doctrine & Covenants: “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” Yet Joseph had been engaging in plural marriage for three or four years. The statement no longer appears in D&C, of course.

Joseph deceptively denied being a polygamist as late as a month before he died: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” (History of the Church 6:411; see also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 119).

The evidence shows that Joseph lied to his own church, and even lied in his own scripture, about his polygamy. Is this really to be finessed away as an example of God using humble, ordinary people to do his work?

Abraham lied about his marriage to the authorities to save his life in his own scriptures no less. Why can't Joseph Smith?

Your Double Standard is showing again.

PS. I really think your understanding of "God using humble, ordinary people to do his work" is skewed too. By all accounts John the Baptist was a homeless roughly dressed willow in the wilderness. Could a prophet be a Homless bumb? Or even a backwoods uneducated farm boy? The proud in the churches of today would say definatley no.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Zakuska