Rough Stone Rolling right over their faith?

[_aussieguy55]

that's where you and I differ. Bushman, Backman, Gee, Sorenson, Nibley, they all are out there talking to their own, reassuring them that's all well in Zion. Suppose for example that the records for the West Palmyra Pres ch turned up and show that members of the Smith family did join in 1823-24 rather than 1820, would that not be a problem for the LDS?

[_Yong Xi]

I wonder how Why Me views someone like Ted Haggard?



Isn't there SOME standard a judgemental hypocrite must adhere to when telling other people they're sinners?


( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * )

Can't answer for Why Me, but here is a Monty Python take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEcEwPszfrE

[_why me]

Wait a second. . . you're telling us that starting a fake bank in order to pay off your debts by stripping your followers of their life savings is "goodness?" You're also telling us that pretending to see buried treasure in order to bilk Josiah Stowell out of his money is "goodness?" Perhaps you're also telling us that sending men away on missions so that you can "marry" their wives in their absence is "goodness" too?

Of course, Shades, it is always easy to put a negative spin on it all. As far as I know, the bank issue came up as a way to raise needed capital and this was done by church leaders. To begin a bank was not uncommon during that time frame and in fact, it was quite usual. In fact, banks were growing in number in the early 1830's. Did the Kirkland bank fail? Yes, it did. But many other banks failed also. I do not give the saints any credit for business sense but then again, capitalism is such that success can also bring failure at some point. Just look at today's credit crisis. And the same applied to the banking crisis that grip Ohio and other parts in the late 1830's. But then again, there were plenty of antimormons out there just waiting for a weak spot and this bank crisis gave them their weak spot in attacking the LDS church. Joseph lost a quite a sum in that venture. He gained nothing.

And yes, apostacy occured because of it.

As far as Josiah Stowell, I see no bilking of money. No Spanish mine was found but both believed that it would be found. And we must remember that Joseph was barely 20 years old at the time.

[Guest]

I'm not asking you to give us comparisons. I'm asking whether or not it is possible to detect a false prophet, and if so, just what counts as evidence of false prophethood, since mistakes of a fallible man are extremely faith-promoting, according to you.

Now looking back, when looking at the life of Joseph Smith, I see mistakes were made by Joseph. But then again, I also know that mistakes are made by everyone and I have no doubt at all that mistakes were made by all prophets in the Bible and by all apostles in the new testament. First, they were all human with all the weakness that that means. And yes, Joseph Smith had his weaknesses too. And he would have been the first to admit it as when he did say that he was not righteous.

But looking at Joseph Smith, we see many demensions. He was a builder of cities and a builder of people. He began from humble beginnings and from those beginnings he accomplished much. And from that accomplishment, goodness was nurtured. And his legacy still lives on in goodness when one looks at the LDS church. That says much about the man who claimed to commune with Jehova.

I see no comparisons with Koresh and Jones. They are gone and they took their flock with them. I see no foundation for Strang either. But what Joseph Smith founded, it became successful in bringing joy into countless lives. And that says a lot that Joseph was who he said he was.

[_why me]

Mr. Joseph Smith avatar Why Me....... I really don't think you can be convinced of anything. You walk two paths, Mormon and Catholic, maybe others. Shades and the Clerk have both given you great arguments that, in my view, are very valid and you go back to your pat answers. And that is your choice and right to do so, but you seem so Polyanna, all's well in zionish. I don't think it does any good to make comments to your posts because your responses are so predictable and uninventive.

I don't walk two paths. My reaction here is the same that I have taken on the catholic board against people who attempt to claim that the LDS church is false and that Joseph Smith was an evil man. I just don't see it that way. I cannot claim that the LDS church is false unless it is proven false. And as of now, it hasn't been proven false.

Now if people here would take a calmer position I may just begin to agree with some aspects of Joseph Smith's life. But I don't see that at all. I see flame throwers and bomb throwers. And that is the problem.

Agruments are valid not based on Hypotheticals but rather based on evidence and counter evidence. And in the case of the LDS church, I see no valid evidence that the Book of Mormon is false. But I do see hypotheticals.

[_Pokatator]

I don't walk two paths. My reaction here is the same that I have taken on the catholic board against people who attempt to claim that the LDS church is false and that Joseph Smith was an evil man. I just don't see it that way. I cannot claim that the LDS church is false unless it is proven false. And as of now, it hasn't been proven false.

I don't post on the Catholic board I can only assess you by what you post here. I see you going down two paths and serving two masters here.

Can you prove the JWs true or false? Do you believe they have the truth? Why don't you defend Mr. Russell like you do Mr. Smith after all he created an organization of goodness didn't he?

Now if people here would take a calmer position I may just begin to agree with some aspects of Joseph Smith's life. But I don't see that at all. I see flame throwers and bomb throwers. And that is the problem.

Amazing.....my calmness determines your level of agreement on Smith's life. I am left to suppose that facts would have nothing to do with your process. I do not believe I have thrown any bombs or napalm, I have only questioned you and your motives and processes of thought. I am sorry that you can't see past a little of your own hallucination of smoke and fire and can't really look at the truth objectively.

Agruments are valid not based on Hypotheticals but rather based on evidence and counter evidence. And in the case of the LDS church, I see no valid evidence that the Book of Mormon is false. But I do see hypotheticals.

We are just a 180 degrees off from each other on evidence and hypotheticals. The church and, I guess you, need to prove the Book of Mormon true because all the evidence is pointing that it is a work of fiction. It is the church that is coming up with the hypotheticals and counter evidence not those outside the church. Note: the change to the intro of the Book of Mormon, 2 cumorahs maybe more in the future, tapirs, steel mills, linguistics, DNA, and real history. These issues and others are bending the church to suppress history, revise past teachings, come up with new theories, and distract and delude their members and the world to stay viable. That is just the Book of Mormon stuff but the church has bent on the "ban", Adam/God, temple rites and, of course, polygamy out of political, social, and financial pressure. The church isn't today what Smith would recognize as his.

Even the Church of Christ has seen the writing on the wall, the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.

Please, show me the proof.
.
.

[_sunstoned]

Let's be honest with ourselves here for a minute and leave the spin aside. How can someone that entices investors by claiming to have received a revelation from God to create a bank, and that the bank will be successful, only to have it default amid claims of fraud. How can any rational adult chalk this up to a simple mistake. The evidence points to a plan of deception from day one.

If this happened to any other group, Mormons would be pointing their fingers and saying what a bunch of crooks.

[_Chap]

Let's be honest with ourselves here for a minute and leave the spin aside. How can someone that entices investors by claiming to have received a revelation from God to create a bank, and that the bank will be successful, only to have it default amid claims of fraud. How can any rational adult chalk this up to a simple mistake.

Oh, good ole whyme will show you how to do it! He'll be along in a minute, just watch him! Don't try this at home, of course. It takes years of practice to do it right, and if an untrained person were to attempt it the result might be serious injury, or at least several years in jail.

The evidence points to a plan of deception from day one.

If this happened to any other group, Mormons would be pointing their fingers and saying what a bunch of crooks.

Hey, that last sentence is a hypothetical ... there you go again, you illogical anti-mormon, you!

[_Dr. Shades]

So why me, you're saying that it's impossible to detect a false prophet while he's still alive; he has to be dead before we can see what his "fruits" are--right?

[_AlmaBound]

Wait a second. . . you're telling us that starting a fake bank in order to pay off your debts by stripping your followers of their life savings is "goodness?" You're also telling us that pretending to see buried treasure in order to bilk Josiah Stowell out of his money is "goodness?" Perhaps you're also telling us that sending men away on missions so that you can "marry" their wives in their absence is "goodness" too?

Of course, Shades, it is always easy to put a negative spin on it all.

This is fantastic, whyme. Good show. Calling good evil and evil good makes for great theatre.