Fair enough. So the assumption must be, in regards to God, is that He can't under any circumstance allow or sanction someone to lie about something. No one can lie to his wife saying she doesn't look fat, if she does? Or what are we getting at here?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: In your opinion how many atheists does that equate to? Has he had an impact on creating more than anyone else? Afterall there are perhaps more ex-Catholic folks that are atheists than there are ex-LDS, right?
First, there are many Ex-Catholics who are now agnostic/atheist/other Christian label (The reasons for this covers the entire spectrum, in my opinion) Not that it matters (your point of discussion is widening the topic to at least 5 other entire threads) but the pool of Catholic folk is a much bigger number of people than that of the LDS folk.
My point (I was trying to make about your OP) is that it is my opinion (and had been my experience) that the end result of people who leave the LDS faith very often produce an atheist.
Fair enough. So the assumption must be, in regards to God, is that He can't under any circumstance allow or sanction someone to lie about something. No one can lie to his wife saying she doesn't look fat, if she does? Or what are we getting at here?
Fair enough. So the assumption must be, in regards to God, is that He can't under any circumstance allow or sanction someone to lie about something. No one can lie to his wife saying she doesn't look fat, if she does? Or what are we getting at here?
You don't see any difference between Joseph's self-serving lie and a fib that's based on something more subjective (how someone looks)?
If Joseph was willing to lie about something as important polygamy, what else did he lie about?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Fair enough. So the assumption must be, in regards to God, is that He can't under any circumstance allow or sanction someone to lie about something. No one can lie to his wife saying she doesn't look fat, if she does? Or what are we getting at here?
Why would god be the author of lies if satan if the father of all lies? Do you think god and satan are one and the same being?
stemelbow wrote:So let's consider...If Joseph Smith was commanded to restore the practice of polygamy as the ancients, as was his claim, essentially, and if we consider the culture of anti-polygamy he was in, then what is so wrong about keeping it secret if it was all God sanctioned, particularly if God sanctioned the lying?
Wo unto the liar for he shall be thrust down to hell. With the exception of Joseph Smith cuz I totally told him to lie. *wink* We are also told that God cannot lie or he will cease to be god. If god told Smith to lie about polygamy god ceased to exist....and indeed that is what happened for many a critic.
Sorry. I do not believe that is a viable option given the scriptures.
Also, it is unethical to have people join a church without letting them know all the details. There were people who gave up everything to join the church and follow the damn prophet only to find out about polygamy later. Not happy times.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
sock puppet wrote:Dead people that have any significance today only do so by how they are currently perceived. For those perceptions, there is the reputation that has survived, but then been modified--either by those that use the dead person for some purpose like the LDS Church uses JSJr (i.e., the sanitized and correlated JSJr) or by what is dug up from searches for historical, primary sources (i.e., which tethers the dead figure closer to what JSJr's contemporaries wrote about him during his life).
So I agree that no one can know JSJr, just as you cannot know my thoughts or the details of my life. But I do think that question is appropriate, or else there could be no evaluations or judgments made concerning anyone, about anything. The fact is, now almost 170 years after his death, JSJr is talked about and a factor in many peoples lives. So the question is, what can reasonably be said about JSJr given what historical record there is. Idealizing him beyond that, or denigrating him beyond that, is merely speculation. To the extent that the historical record points in the direction that one speculates, at least there is basis for the speculation.
I agree JSJr is painted as good or bad. But I strongly suspect like other human beings, he had good tendencies and bad ones. The question is what percentages were there of good and bad in his particular solution.
From what I have seen from the historical record as it keeps becoming widely known, JSJr created negative incidences in his life that overcome what good he did. He was a charismatic phenomena despite his shady side and dealings, in having amassed a very large following in a very short period of time (1830-1844). As a cohesive social unit, JSJr's following was able to achieve things in Kirtland OH, Nauvoo IL, and in Utah and the surrounding West that would most likely not have been accomplished but for JSJr's creation of that cohesive social unit. However, his piccadilloes cannot be downplayed to insignificance, not reasonably downplayed anyway.
And it has been nothing short of deliberate misimaging by the LDS Church, its generating and promoting the mythical story about JSJr, if not idol making, for now going on two centuries. In fact, as more about the real JSJr becomes revealed broadly, it is as relevant as to who he was as it is about what the Church has been up to in all that time since his death.
I hate to point out, SP, that you have provided nothing but another unresponsive post. I haven't counted them exactly but it happens frequently, we all do it. but wasn't it last week when I pointed this out to you? let's try to listen and respond to each other, huh?
Are you really putting back on your utterly dense, hillbilly act again, pep, pep?
hapless stemelbow wrote:yesterday afternoon I set up the hammock under the tree out back and poppped open Rough Stone Rolling. Its been a while since I've popped open that book so I figured I'd poke around while relaxing in the shade.
I'm always intrigued by the absolute mentality of the critic regarding the evils of not only Joseph Smith but so many involved in the beginning of Mormonism. It occurs to me that in most cases that came to mind yesterday afternoon in which critics often cite to discredit Joseph Smith, alternate conclusions can reasonably, at least to some extent, be made. I guess the um, dogmatic way its talked about here regarding how evil and wrong Mormonism is confuses me. It seems assumed that Joseph Smith is evil therefore the church is not "true". The LDS of faith seem to take it exactly opposite. Suddenly every encounter in Joseph Smith' life was far more than it ever was, often for both sides. And I realized, that for how good RSR is there is so much we simply can't know regarding the life, mind and times of Joseph Smith. These days conclusions come easy. We hear some pieces of information here or there and soon enough we develop our theories and since no one has anything better, in our minds, our conclusions are right. But we don't really know. We simply assume we know. It makes me wonder if, in the end we have nothing but gross caricatures of people we only pretend to know.
This thread will discuss and focus on any particulars in Joseph Smith' life that are seen as unseemly to determine if the assumption of unseemly is warranted. Please advise.
So maybe you can get your correlation whitewash brush out and try to claim my post was "unresponsive". It might sell well with your compadres, but given what you posted, mine was spot on, even if it did make you squirm with discomfort and pissed you off. Keep playing the tool. It fits you well.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please read D&C 132 in its entirety. You can also do a word search for "destroyed" through LDS.org.
But if God offers a command and with that command says you shall be "destroyed" if you do not abide that command, then is it still abuse? It seems in all this you are assuming Joseph Smith was making it all up. but that is not his claim, of course.
Yes. That is abuse. So either god is an abusive dick or Joseph Smith was abusive and manipulative.
Thanks. YOu have, so far been the most responsive to my OP.
*grin* No problem.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Ceeboo wrote:Hey again, Stem, First, there are many Ex-Catholics who are now agnostic/atheist/other Christian label (The reasons for this covers the entire spectrum, in my opinion) Not that it matters (your point of discussion is widening the topic to at least 5 other entire threads) but the pool of Catholic folk is a much bigger number of people than that of the LDS folk.
My point (I was trying to make about your OP) is that it is my opinion (and had been my experience) that the end result of people who leave the LDS faith very often produce an atheist.
Do you agree/disagree?
Peace, Ceeboo
I don't know that i agree. I see tons of ex-LDs that head to other christian sects. I don't know how th enumber would/could compare to say Catholics. Do you? It seems like you do but aren't saying.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Ceeboo wrote:Hey again, Stem, First, there are many Ex-Catholics who are now agnostic/atheist/other Christian label (The reasons for this covers the entire spectrum, in my opinion) Not that it matters (your point of discussion is widening the topic to at least 5 other entire threads) but the pool of Catholic folk is a much bigger number of people than that of the LDS folk.
My point (I was trying to make about your OP) is that it is my opinion (and had been my experience) that the end result of people who leave the LDS faith very often produce an atheist.
Do you agree/disagree?
Peace, Ceeboo
I don't know that i agree. I see tons of ex-LDs that head to other christian sects. I don't know how th enumber would/could compare to say Catholics. Do you? It seems like you do but aren't saying.
Why would god's one and only true church on earth give a rat's ass how it compares to Catholicism?