Joseph Smith Megathread

[_Polygamy-Porter]

And to answer your asinine questions, I take full responsibility for allowing myself to be lied to by the church I thought I could trust. Believe me it won't happen again. I am now skeptical of every statement made by any church authority.

BRA-vo my good man Willy.

I have taken the high road as well and ensured that my children will not have to experience the same duplicitous upbringing.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I am going to give you a small quiz. Let us see what the outcome is.

Responsibility really does lie on all parties here. leaders and parents are responsible, more so in ones earlier years. As one grows they get to take more of the responsibility on themselves, which is why many end up not believing any more, but they can rightly put some of the blame on their parents and religious leaders for past beliefs, decisions, behaviors, and events that may have occurred.

True.

It makes me wonder how Simon would react to his son apostatizing, being gay, or both?

[_Simon Belmont]

Based on your smart-ass response I am assuming you believe that it was my responsibility to not take what my primary, YM and sunday school teachers taught me as truth?

Wrong again, Willy Law. It was truth. Just because it wasn't every little detail was not the fault of your church leaders. If you wanted to study more about it, it was wholly up to you.

For example, in a college literature class, what percentage of all available printed literature do you think we read?

It was my responsibility as a 17 year old in the 80's outside of Utah to find early church documents? Where again was a 17 year old boy in the NW in the 80's suppose to find this information you say was not hidden from me by the church?

Everything you needed to know was readily available, including some of these documents. Remember, there were a lot of other Mormon kids who didn't live in Utah in the 1980s who are still active and very spiritually fulfilled by the Church.

If you want to try and explain away these issues as not important that's fine, but you are showing yourself as the douche you truly are for trying to blame those of us that trusted in our church leaders and were blindsided by the true church.

You weren't "blindsided" Willy Law, your leaders taught you the truth (assuming they followed Church materials). Just because there were some things that were left out doesn't mean you were lied to!

As one who would like to see the church exposed I would urge you to continue blaming those of us who feel blindsided by true church history. I have read account after account of people leaving the church and it is insensitive, ignorant, apologists like yourself that help shove them out the door of the church. Bravo.

I do not understand why you are so defensive. I have been civil to you while you have blasted my deeply held beliefs with statements like the above. I am not an apologist.

And to answer your asinine questions, I take full responsibility for allowing myself to be lied to by the church I thought I could trust. Believe me it won't happen again. I am now skeptical of every statement made by any church authority.

You were not "lied" to. Being lied to is being deliberately deceived. Your Church leaders taught you the lessons that everyone else in the Church learns. Some of us, however, say "Hmm, I found that lesson interesting, I want to research it a little more."

Were you lied to by your 3rd grade science teacher because she didn't explain the calculus involved in heat-transfer physics?

[_Simon Belmont]

It makes me wonder how Simon would react to his son apostatizing, being gay, or both?

I would love him the same.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Were you lied to by your 3rd grade science teacher because she didn't explain the calculus involved in heat-transfer physics?

Irrelevant because your family did not hold your own family membership hostage until you believed everything that this third grade teacher taught.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

It makes me wonder how Simon would react to his son apostatizing, being gay, or both?

I would love him the same.

Good on you. Just remember this and keep that promise.

[_thews]

Note to the critical thought process… this is how a brainwashed mind works:

Wrong again, Willy Law. It was truth. Just because it wasn't every little detail was not the fault of your church leaders. If you wanted to study more about it, it was wholly up to you.

Why does one need to “study more” to find the truth? The LDS church prints lies about the translation method. The LDS church hides the magical seer stones that the apologists “conflate” with the term Urim and Thummim. The LDS church hides the papyrus used to “translate” the Book of Abraham. One doesn’t need to “study more” to discount the mistruth, one only needs to acknowledge the deception the Mormon church uses to hide the truth.

For example, in a college literature class, what percentage of all available printed literature do you think we read?

Note to the critical thought process… this is called circular reasoning. The example has nothing to do with discounting bad information. Show me one picture of Joseph Smith with his head in his hat using a seer stone in a Mormon publication. I can show you many with the “finger on book” that never happened.

Everything you needed to know was readily available, including some of these documents. Remember, there were a lot of other Mormon kids who didn't live in Utah in the 1980s who are still active and very spiritually fulfilled by the Church.

This is an absolute lie. What Simon determines is “readily available” is only available through so-called “anti” Mormon sites. Mormon sites deleted the true history and distort the truth. Willy was lied to, just as 99% of Mormons are today.

You weren't "blindsided" Willy Law, your leaders taught you the truth (assuming they followed Church materials). Just because there were some things that were left out doesn't mean you were lied to!

Note to the critical thought process… this is how a brainwashed mind appeases its cognitive dissonance. Using Simon’s logic, the church leaders “left some things out” doesn’t mean they lied. Preaching gospel that’s true doesn’t require that truth be omitted. By abstention of the truth, the lie is a distorted version of the truth. Simon Belmont is a liar, but justifies lying by teaching partial truth to itching ears.

I do not understand why you are so defensive. I have been civil to you while you have blasted my deeply held beliefs with statements like the above. I am not an apologist.

Then what are you? What cause do you champion? You equate using occult seer stones to deliver the so-called “Christian” doctrine of a false prophet as “so what” in its significance. Are you that ignorant? If Joseph Smith used a Ouija board to “translate” the pagan book of the dead, would this also be a “so what” level of relevance?

You were not "lied" to. Being lied to is being deliberately deceived. Your Church leaders taught you the lessons that everyone else in the Church learns. Some of us, however, say "Hmm, I found that lesson interesting, I want to research it a little more."

Your contradiction shows the brainwashed level your distorted sense of reality has taught your mind to discount truth to appease the cognitive dissonance. On one hand, you claim, “Being lied to is being deliberately deceived.” On the other, you claim, “Just because there were some things that were left out doesn't mean you were lied to!” Your contradictions make sense to you, because you need them to make sense. The occult magic believed in by Joe Smith to dupe people into believing his lies to convey false doctrine connected to Jesus Christ are being preached by you as the truth. Sleep well Simon Belmont, as this domain is defined by the truth if you subscribe to the Bible, and you are preacher to itching ears… a liar. Your motive is personal gain… you need it to be true. It’s sad though… your own brainwashed sense of self can’t even see simple contradiction.

Were you lied to by your 3rd grade science teacher because she didn't explain the calculus involved in heat-transfer physics?

More twisted circular reasoning. How about, “Well I don’t know anyone who is perfect, so how can we hold Joseph Smith to perfection?” How about, “Well, there are faults in the Bible, so it makes sense there are faults in Mormonism too.” In reality, Joseph Smith was very bad person and a dubious con man. Using his power to marry other men’s wives and little 14 and 15 year old girls is not something one should use a metric of perfection to gauge. How far do you need to move to goalposts to score your supposed point. You are brainwashed Simon Belmont and cannot think critically. You lie to appease what you need to be true, so that others will join you in ignorance of the truth. Sleep well Simon Belmont. If there’s one thing the Bible is very clear about it’s God disdain for liars. When your life is done, any who listened to your lies and chose the path of deception will hang on your head.

[_Willy Law]

I do not understand why you are so defensive. I have been civil to you while you have blasted my deeply held beliefs with statements like the above. I am not an apologist.

Actually you are correct. I feel horrible for calling you a douche. I felt so bad I almost could not deliver when my wife decided she felt like a nooner after lunch. I said "almost" polygamy-porter don't worry brotha, I came through like a champ.

Hopefully you will cut me a little slack. I am still very much in my anger phase. Nothing triggers my anger as much as people trying to defend the church in lying to me throughout my life.
Apologies.

You were not "lied" to. Being lied to is being deliberately deceived. Your Church leaders taught you the lessons that everyone else in the Church learns.

I think your definition of lie is different than the church's. According to the current Preach my Gospel manual being taught this year in virtually every class:

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=63011f7962d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD


Based on the church's definition of lying would you like to recant your statement that I was not lied to?
Come on Simon, man up and admit we were lied to.

[_harmony]

This whole discussion reminds me of the way Big Tobacco used to hook kids into smoking. And how after they were hooked by the most addictive substance known to man, Big Tobacco refused to take any responsibility. And how it took a consortium of attorneys general to hammer out the Master Settlement Agreement that put the blame firmly where it belongs: on Big Tobacco.

The church uses many of the same manuevers as Big Tobacco used to.

[_Kevin Graham]

Of course Smith had sex with his wives. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any need to marry them.

Sigh, don't you know Will Schryver has come up with a "game changer" for this one too? He plans to prove "conclusively" that it was impossible for Joseph Smith to have sex with those women. He will argue that Joseph Smith was homosexual.

Unfortunately, Schryver doesn't see how this creates more problems than it solves.