Let's see where we can get with this

[_schreech]

Let's start with a few more concrete examples:

Does the Book of Mormon purport to be the history of a vast, technologically and socially advanced Hebrew civilization in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere?

___Yes

___No

Does the LDS Church teach that the Book of Mormon is in fact what it purports to be?

___Yes

___No

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of determining whether ancient civilizations actually existed?

___Yes

___No

Does the LDS Church claim that the human race began approximately 6,000 years ago, when the only two homo sapiens who existed on this Earth entered mortality in present-day Missouri?

___Yes

___No

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of the origins of homo sapiens?

___Yes

___No


Does the LDS Church claim that every form of life on this planet became subject to physical death only approximately 6,000 years ago, when the only two homo sapiens who existed on this Earth entered mortality in present-day Missouri?

___Yes

___No

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of the origins of species and the development of life on this planet?

___Yes

___No

Does the Book of Mormon teach that the tower of Babel story from the Bible is actual history, and that this is the origin of different languages in the world?

___Yes

___No

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of the origins and development of languages?

___Yes

___No

Does the Book of Abraham contain vignettes taken from ancient Egyptian papyri and a purported translation of what is written and depicted on those vignettes?

___Yes

___No

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of ancient Egyptian writings?

___Yes

___No

LOL - thanks darth - you have handed down, yet another, bitch-slap to the stem:




what i think of everytime the stem creates a thread:



Oh, and reuigen verrater...welcome :)

[_Darth J]

Yes in so doing you seem to have missed that the injunction does not pertain to Joseph Smith:
“Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.”

Either Joseph Smith was justified whether he transgressed here or not or he was not. The LORD says he was justified by doing the sacrifice which He required for his transgressions. If you take the outline of your interpretation as infallible as you have done, then you must also take the justification offered by the LORD as infallible. No one else is justified.

I see you are going with the "Joseph Smith gets to do whatever he wants, regardless of how it affects other people's lives" defense. (And remember: we're not a cult!)

Unfortunately, the plain language of D&C 132 does not support your self-serving (well, Joseph-serving) interpretation. Section 132 is specifically directed at Joseph Smith and is telling him to obey what he is about to be told. This revelation also makes it clear that everyone has to follow the terms and conditions.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

You'll have to excuse the Lord for having a hard time keeping his thou's and you's straight when he is trying to pantomime the language of the King James Bible.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

Your "super-secret Get Out of Jail Free Card that only applies to Joseph Smith!" hypothesis directly contradicts the Lord:

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

You are also decidedly omitting that in order to be justified, a priesthood holder has to follow the law, which is the context of the Lord telling Joseph Smith that he is justified.

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

There is nothing in D&C 132 that even remotely suggests that someone can violate "the law" and be justified. Every statement made by "the Lord" in this section indicates that obedience to "the law" is absolutely necessary in order to be justified. The stated premise of this revelation being received is Joseph Smith trying to find out how plural marriage was justified, and "the Lord" is explaining the law under which it is justified.

[_stemelbow]

Why need any institution, fallible or not?

"Need" wouldn't be the right word in my view.

Thanks for disabusing me of that notion.

Anytime.

HowThe Bible says, by their fruits ye shall know them.

And what do you think that refers to?

God is the author of all truth, and Satan the father of all lies. What fruit was JSJr bearing on 5/26/1844? Was JSJr's denial fathered by Satan?

Could have been. Beats me. I don't trace people's stated thoughts back to their source beyond the person's head, personally. You?

[_sock puppet]

And I did not say that, either. Would you say that your mischaracterization of the issue is deliberate, or are you really that obtuse?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14539&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

I would say you didn't give me much to go on at all. Now that you link this post of yours I see what you're saying now. Previously it came off as an assumption to me. I personally don't care if you think I'm deliberately doing something or being obtuse. I simply didn't see much of anything here but an assertion.

Anyway, lets look at the verses you use to support your notion that a man cannot be a prophet if...

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

You say the following: “D&C 132 gives specific parameters for when plural marriage is acceptable to the Lord:

*The consent of the previous wife must be sought
*The plural wives must be virgins
*The plural wives must be vowed to no one else
*A man's plural wives "are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth"

You continue:

“In practicing plural marriage, Joseph Smith:

*Frequently did not seek Emma's consent/hid his plural marriages from Emma
*On January 17, 1842, married Mary Elizabeth Rollins, who was several months pregnant (obviously not a virgin)
*Entered polyandrous marriages with the wives of other men
*Had no known children with his plural wives”

Yes in so doing you seem to have missed that the injunction does not pertain to Joseph Smith:
“Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.”

Either Joseph Smith was justified whether he transgressed here or not or he was not. The LORD says he was justified by doing the sacrifice which He required for his transgressions. If you take the outline of your interpretation as infallible as you have done, then you must also take the justification offered by the LORD as infallible. No one else is justified.

Hmmm. Another proof of it's good to be king. (JSJr did declare himself king of the world, or so the scribe noted such in the minutes of the Council of Fifty.)

[_Darth J]

Let's start with a few more concrete examples:

Does the Book of Mormon purport to be the history of a vast, technologically and socially advanced Hebrew civilization in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere?

No.

Yeah, the Nephites were basically cavemen going around saying "ugh."

Does the LDS Church teach that the Book of Mormon is in fact what it purports to be?

Yes.

So the Church teaches that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be, but it isn't what it purports to be (per your previous answer). Very good.

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of determining whether ancient civilizations actually existed?

Sure.

So tell me how the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

Does the LDS Church claim that the human race began approximately 6,000 years ago, when the only two homo sapiens who existed on this Earth entered mortality in present-day Missouri?

yes

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of the origins of homo sapiens?

Yes.

So tell me how the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

Does the LDS Church claim that every form of life on this planet became subject to physical death only approximately 6,000 years ago, when the only two homo sapiens who existed on this Earth entered mortality in present-day Missouri?

yes

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of the origins of species and the development of life on this planet?

Yes.[/quote]

So tell me how the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

Does the Book of Mormon teach that the tower of Babel story from the Bible is actual history, and that this is the origin of different languages in the world?

It can be interpreted that way. But it can also be seen differently.

Ether 1:32-37

32 And Kib was the son of Orihah, who was the son of Jared;
33 Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered.
34 And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words.
35 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon Jared; therefore he did not confound the language of Jared; and Jared and his brother were not confounded.
36 Then Jared said unto his brother: Cry again unto the Lord, and it may be that he will turn away his anger from them who are our friends, that he confound not their language.
37 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon their friends and their families also, that they were not confounded.

Go ahead and "interpret that differently" for me.

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of the origins and development of languages?

yes

So tell me how the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

Does the Book of Abraham contain vignettes taken from ancient Egyptian papyri and a purported translation of what is written and depicted on those vignettes?

Sure.

Are there any sciences or academic disciplines dedicated to the study of ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes.

So tell me how the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

[_stemelbow]

I see you are going with the "Joseph Smith gets to do whatever he wants, regardless of how it affects other people's lives" defense. (And remember: we're not a cult!)

Try as you might, you simply can’t seem to state my position to my satisfaction. You’re way off on this one.

You'll have to excuse the Lord for having a hard time keeping his thou's and you's straight when he is trying to pantomime the language of the King James Bible.

Perhaps this can give us a clue that what is written isn’t precisely God’s exact words. This is what I’d refer to when I say you take such a hard-line legalistic stance.

There is nothing in D&C 132 that even remotely suggests that someone can violate "the law" and be justified. Every statement made by "the Lord" in this section indicates that obedience to "the law" is absolutely necessary in order to be justified. The stated premise of this revelation being received is Joseph Smith trying to find out how plural marriage was justified, and "the Lord" is explaining the law under which it is justified.

So in 1843 you are saying that the LORD’s instructions about how to proceed in terms of plural marriage apply retroactively to Joseph Smith. Meaning his (Joseph Smith) actions pre-1843 violated the law that God had later told him, so that means by violating the unknown law he exposed himself as a false prophet even though this very revelation was given through him? And when God said Joseph Smith is justified, even though he’s transgressed, you take that to mean that he is justified if he kept (which we now see as you saying he did not keep) the law that He’s now revealing to him, and yet God Himself has said He has transgressed but He doesn’t know it (but He does)?

[_sock puppet]

Why need any institution, fallible or not?

"Need" wouldn't be the right word in my view.

Okay, let's try this: Why would any institution be desired or useful for believing god when he gives you personal revelation?

The Bible says, by their fruits ye shall know them.

And what do you think that refers to?

Those that tell the truth consistently can, for example, be relied upon. Those that lie (particularly about their "religious" practices) cannot be relied upon.

God is the author of all truth, and Satan the father of all lies. What fruit was JSJr bearing on 5/26/1844? Was JSJr's denial fathered by Satan?

Could have been. Beats me. I don't trace people's stated thoughts back to their source beyond the person's head, personally. You?

Actually, yes. In the judicial system, where intent is a necessary element for a cause of action or a crime, or is an exacerbating factor, intent is determined as drawn from all the facts and circumstances.

JSJr was then (on 5/26/1844) being dogged publicly by claims from Walmart Law and his brother that despite earlier protestations, JSJr was involved in polygamy/spiritual wifery/adultery. JSJr would not come clean. He would not admit it, even with the explanation that he was threatened with his life by an angel with a flaming sword unless JSJr did it. Rather, JSJr was under seige within the LDS ranks. He'd tried and failed in the preceding months to have Sidney Rigdon kicked out of the First Presidency. He'd been refused his amorous advances towards Jane Law. Walmart Law defected, and was exposing JSJr's practices despite his public denials. JSJr was now acting in secret, having formed his Council of Fifty under the cloak of secrecy. Walmart Law's public accusations were causing dissension among the faithful in Nauvoo. Even that pesky Relief Society had turned on JSJr, probing into the rumors of polygamy. And so, JSJr told an untruth. From these facts and circumstances JSJr was simply trying to save his own bacon. Not a very good defense. He wasn't "lying for the Lord" even. He was trying to save his own skin, and his elevated position in Nauvoo.

[_just me]

Hi stem, feel free to ignore me if you wish. I've read the entire thread.

I have a question.

Is there anything that Joseph Smith could have done to lose the mantle of prophet or lose his priesthood? If yes, what?

Thanks.

[_Drifting]

So in 1843 you are saying that the LORD’s instructions about how to proceed in terms of plural marriage apply retroactively to Joseph Smith. Meaning his (Joseph Smith) actions pre-1843 violated the law that God had later told him, so that means by violating the unknown law he exposed himself as a false prophet even though this very revelation was given through him?

Unknown law?

From the header of D&C 132
"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."

[_stemelbow]

DJ,

So tell me how the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.

I believe you've misunderstood me. I did not say the Church does not make claims of fact that are falsifiable.