simone blowhard writes: "Joseph Smith did not lie. He only had one legal wife, although he was sealed to many women. As I have said before, these sealings were probably not sexual in nature. He loved Emma, she was his wife and his true love."
And I have never killed anyone even though shooting an M16, an 81mm mortar and a beautiful Remington . They died on their own.
What a beautiful thing blinders can be simone. Maybe you will find some stupid enough to believe this crap.
As for Joseph and the women. The purpose of plural marriage was to raise 'righteous seed' to TheLard. Given that 'TheLard does not give commandments but which he provides a way to fulfill them(or some such)", why command plural marrige for righteous seed and then keep Joseph from producing the rugrats?
You are dumber than a pet rock.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson
Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?
infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
harmony wrote:Well, we know you aren't much of a judge of the character of men.
How do "we" know this?
We know this, because your judgment of Joseph Smith is so flawed. If you can't be trusted to know what kind of man Joseph Smith was, your trustworthiness in character judgment of others is equally suspect.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:We know this, because your judgment of Joseph Smith is so flawed. If you can't be trusted to know what kind of man Joseph Smith was, your trustworthiness in character judgment of others is equally suspect.
Well I was not there, and you were not there. It is impossible to precisely judge a historical person. All we have are writings.
Simon Belmont wrote:it is my opinion, based on a lifetime of study and research.
There is a difference between saying: "Joseph Smith was a prophet". and saying "In my opinion, Joseph Smith was a prophet".
I'll refrain from commenting on your research skills.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Joseph wrote:simone blowhard writes: "Joseph Smith did not lie. He only had one legal wife, although he was sealed to many women. As I have said before, these sealings were probably not sexual in nature. He loved Emma, she was his wife and his true love."
And I have never killed anyone even though shooting an M16, an 81mm mortar and a beautiful Remington . They died on their own.
Did you shoot it directly at them? Was it during a battle in the middle east? Did you purposefully pull the trigger? Were you commanded by God to pull the trigger?
madeleine wrote:I think it is funny stuff when Mormons say Smith's sealing weren't marriages.
They were recognized marriages in the Church, they were not all legal marriages. There is no evidence that Joseph thought of anyone other than Emma as his one true love.
Your point? Did Smith believe he was married to all his wives or not?
If he didn't love all the women he married, then yes, he was using them. Some say for sex. Others say for something else. Either way, God does not ask people to use each other, for any purpose.
Could be the worst "reasoning" for polygamy I've seen yet.
Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction -Pope Benedict XVI
Simon Belmont wrote:Well I was not there, and you were not there. It is impossible to precisely judge a historical person. All we have are writings.
Then based on the historical record, you're saying Hitler wasn't evil? Mussolini wasn't evil? Ghengis Khan was just kidding? David Koresh and Jim Jones were just misunderstood?
Do you realize the implications of what you just wrote?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:You state this not as your opinion, but as if it was a fact. On what do you base this conclusion?
it is my opinion, based on a lifetime of study and research.
Then your bar is pretty low for who can be prophets. Do you ignore his illegal treasure seeking? Do you ignore his false prophesies? Do you ignore his bank fraud? Do you ignore his unfaithfulness? Do you ignore his law breaking? Do you ignore the fact his alleged scriptures have no basis in fact?
And before you respond, I was once LDS, I know all the weak apologetic answers to these questions....
Last edited by Guest on Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“What really goes on in the minds of Church leadership who know of the the truth. It would devastate the Church if a top leader were to announce the facts.” Thomas Ferguson, Mormon archaeologist