Liars

[_The Nehor]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions, I thought.

But here's the thing... if Joe was who he said he was, he'd know if there was a flood or not. God wouldn't talk to him about circumstances surrounding a flood if one hadn't actually occurred. So, if he didn't know, he lied. It's that simple.

Where do we find that Joseph consulted with God on the nature of the flood?

[_Some Schmo]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions, I thought.

But here's the thing... if Joe was who he said he was, he'd know if there was a flood or not. God wouldn't talk to him about circumstances surrounding a flood if one hadn't actually occurred. So, if he didn't know, he lied. It's that simple.

Where do we find that Joseph consulted with God on the nature of the flood?

Well, Cain's lineage passed though the flood. Maybe it wasn't Joe who said that, however.

But that's not the point.

The point is that, on those biblical things which Joe did talk about, one would think that God would reveal to him the truths surrounding them, don't you think? I mean, if the prophet can't even get clear messages from god, why should us grunts... sorry, sheep? And if the messages aren't clear, why should we believe them any more than we believe our own wacky feelings?

[_guy sajer]

Good night Rayboy.

Goodnight Mary Ellen.

Goodnight Jonathan.

Edited to add: No, Ray, I am not politically correct. I am, however, socially liberal, though I am not sure how expressing moral outrage at inveterate liars who manipulate women into their beds and then, to keep their wife from complaining too much, threaten her with destruction via bogus revelations from God qualifies me for being either liberal or PC. This is moral outrage I think most conservatives would feel too, that is, assuming that they do not have a vested emotional interest in rationalizing away said boorish behavior.

Well, I have news for you, Guy, maybe you will, or will not, be shocked at how many men are "inveterate liars who manipulate women into beds". And this is why the "moral outrage" against Joseph Smith is so hypocritical. And it goes both ways. Last night I had a man in my taxi in tears because his girlfriend cheated on him. All I could do was console him and say "that's life". Chances are he probably cheated too. This is where the exmo naïvété is so strong. Think of how many US presidents, too, have been like this. You have an international airport named after a serial adulterer, yet you point the finger at Joseph Smith? (Sorry if that sounded cheap, because in spite of this, I have a great admiration for, and belief in America. I have always loved America, and have always been inspired by its coinage - "In God We Trust". Yes, in spite of hypocrisy.)

I am more complex in my views than you think I am, but you'd need to talk to me in person to fully understand them.

Yours truly,

Rayboy, Mary Ellen (who doesn't have cross-dressing tendencies), Jonathan, and a million other demonic conservative personalities.

(I know what's coming next: "But Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet". So was Jacob, the polygamous father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, yes the son of the one who lied to get the birthright inherited by Jacob. Oh, exmos are so full of moral outrage - but not against society, just Joseph Smith, because he "stole their lives". Think of all that missed coffee and beer :)

I don't get offended if you criticize the good ol' US of A. Lord knows we deserve a good chunk of it. I am no lover of Kennedy, not having bought into the myth of Camelot, but neither am I an irrational hater.

Sorry Ray, I do think it relevant that Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet; not only that, but "Second only to Jesus Christ." We have a perfectly legitimate right to expect a higher standard of behavior from him; particularly when, as everyone will concede in just about every other context, one's behavior is an important signaling device about his/her credibility. Surely God knows this.

Appealing also to the sins of a fictitious "prophet" in a book of historical fiction is unconvincing.

If we're going to do that, wow about instead we compare him to Atticus Finch? Now there's real fictitious hero, one who overcame the prejudices of his day to achieve true moral nobility, as opposed to a bronze age goat herder imprisoned by the backward and abhorrent moral norms of his time.

Besides, since when has Mormon doctrine held that our standard of conduct is what other people are doing? Imagine the following scene in a temple recommend interview: Bishop: "Have you ever committed adultery." Member: "Yes, but so did John Kennedy, and holding me accountable for it is hypocritical."

Any guess as to whether he'd get the temple recommend.

Ray, I fully accept that your more complicated than you might appear. I assume that is true for all of us. I never take this kind of forum to be representative of who any of us are.

[_Ray A]

Ray, I fully accept that your more complicated than you might appear. I assume that is true for all of us. I never take this kind of forum to be representative of who any of us are.

That I can agree with.

[_Ray A]

Have a good and safe evening at work, Ray.

KA

Thank you, KA. It was a relatively pleasant shift. I only kicked one drunk out of my cab tonight.

[_Ray A]

Besides, since when has Mormon doctrine held that our standard of conduct is what other people are doing? Imagine the following scene in a temple recommend interview: Bishop: "Have you ever committed adultery." Member: "Yes, but so did John Kennedy, and holding me accountable for it is hypocritical."

That, of course, entirely missed the point I was making. The point I was making has to do with inconsistency, not morality. But you obviously don't see this.

[_capt jack]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions, I thought.

But here's the thing... if Joe was who he said he was, he'd know if there was a flood or not. God wouldn't talk to him about circumstances surrounding a flood if one hadn't actually occurred. So, if he didn't know, he lied. It's that simple.

Where do we find that Joseph consulted with God on the nature of the flood?

Well, to start you could read this article from the Ensign from 1998 click here.

In it, the author reminds us that Joseph Smith did retranslate that part of the Bible that tells about the flood, changing several phrases to indicate, at least according the article's author, that the flood was universal. Joseph Smith also "revealed" the Book of Moses to the world, and much of the latter part of the book talks about Noah, the Flood, and Enoch's vision of the earth's destiny.

[_guy sajer]

Besides, since when has Mormon doctrine held that our standard of conduct is what other people are doing? Imagine the following scene in a temple recommend interview: Bishop: "Have you ever committed adultery." Member: "Yes, but so did John Kennedy, and holding me accountable for it is hypocritical."

That, of course, entirely missed the point I was making. The point I was making has to do with inconsistency, not morality. But you obviously don't see this.

I still think your point is irrelevant. Whether society, or certain prominent members in it, are consistent in their behavior or morals is totally irrelevant. If John Kennedy was banging Marilyn Monroe, Jeanne Tierney, and the mobster's mistress (wasn't her last name Exeter?), how the hell is the relevant to what moral standards we hold the man Mormons claim to be "Second Only to Jesus?"

On a related issue, it is hard to get points across in a forum like this, for limitations writing as a medium of communication, the fact that many of us work fast so as not to spend too much time at this, and the unfortunate tendency in debate (greatly exacerbated in a writing forum; face to face allows much more give and take) for debaters to prioritize "winning" as opposed to to engaging in dialogue. I am as guilty as anyone else.

[_Mercury]

He couldn't be counted on to tell the truth to his own wife, why should anyone trust him to tell the truth to anyone else?

The same wife who went to her grave believing he was a prophet.

Did she ever say about her husband the things you are now saying?

Do you have an explanation for that? Do you think Emma was a simpleton?

Emma was an abused woman who stood ignorantly by her bigamist husband. Why? Why do abused women go back to scum even though they will end up in the hospital, shepishly avoiding the doctors or social workers questions on why they need stitches to their forehead after "walking into a door".

You would rather they just shut up and be a good wife, right ray? You condone it I assume.

[_Roger Morrison]

Some interesting exchanges here... Bringing us closer to the, "truth of all things theological/ecclesiastical" or, seperating us into camps from which we battle over nits-an'-pics?

It seems to me IF/SINCE the Old Testament is not to be taken seriously or literally, then all that follows, in the guise of "God" talk, is, at most entertaining literature crossing the genre from comedy to tragedy, sc-fi to horror... Then all proponents of whatever sect are culpable for their wares and means in the market niches of the industry that those Prophets/Leaders exploit...

Purposely deceiving? Seems to be the question begging an answer. For starters: as a BP/Teacher/et-al did i (and others in similar roles) deceive? Not intentionally; i simply worked with-in the decepion "I" accepted as truth--until "I" knew better... From that point, what does a responsible (responsive?) person do? Beyond venting/testifying in Forums like this? Make waves, don't make waves? Warm regards, Roger