why me wrote:I am still having a hard time seeing sidney write the book and Joseph Smith memorizing it and then, stick his head in a hat and write sidney's book. ... And where was emma when he was writing the Book of Mormon and thinking all these ideas? She was a believer in her husband.
You also seem to have a hard time remembering that Emma was a liar. She benefited from the con more than anybody else.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
why me wrote:I am still having a hard time seeing sidney write the book and Joseph Smith memorizing it and then, stick his head in a hat and write sidney's book. ... And where was emma when he was writing the Book of Mormon and thinking all these ideas? She was a believer in her husband.
No one is saying that Joseph Smith memorized Sidney's book. All Joseph would have to do is read the book and combine parts that he remembered with a little imagination to make up the rest. Also, this is assuming that the witnesses are reliable and that he didn't just have it directly in front of him.
I do also believe that there is strong evidence that he had the KJV Bible right in front of him too. Unless you believe that he memorized it also.
moksha wrote: I am a believer in Jesus and hold both the resurrection and the hope it provides as very dear. When we speak of having a body after the resurrection, it seems strange to me that we would hold it to be exsanguinated so as to be devoid of the same physiological functioning that is furnished through the presence of blood in the pulmonary cycle. Instead, we have to resort to other wackier explanations to cover for this initial speculation that arose through a lack of understanding regarding human physiology.
In any case once this point was realized, it would seem best to acknowledge that new light and understanding has entered the world and such resurrected bodies will from now on have blood and a fully functioning pulmonary system. This would also help in propagating new worlds through having a fully functioning you know what.
I suppose that I'm willing to look at God as being corporal in nature. If God does have a corporal nature then there has to be some kind of substance to that nature. Flesh and bone of a nature/substance different from ours, of course. And yes, one would assume that there would be a "life force" which provides energy to the resurrected/glorified body system. Blood? Not necessarily. For Joseph to teach that the Father has a body of flesh and bone doesn't seem to be illogical as far as it goes. For him to defer to some other "life force" which energizes a resurrected body system does not seem to be illogical either as far as it goes.
TAK wrote: You also seem to have a hard time remembering that Emma was a liar. She benefited from the con more than anybody else.
When emma was asked to rejoin the saints that were still in the area, she replied that there was too much pain involved and she would prefer to stay away. She hardly benefited from the 'con' as you put it. She lost her husband, brother in law, a child and was burned out of home a few times. What did she benefit? But pain.
She also continued to teach her children from the Book of Mormon after her husband was murdered. Now, it would have been great if she would have announced to the world, that it was all a con. But she didn't. She believed in her husband but not in polygamy. She missed the kirkland joseph.
So says Bushman.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
1. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones 2. three Gods in the godhead 3. God the Father was once a man 4. existence of many gods 5. men may become gods 6. God is married 7. Jesus and Lucifer are brothers 8. mankind pre-existed as children of heavenly parents 9. three levels of heaven 10. baptism for the dead 11. doctrine of Celestial marriage
Based on the fact that the list above are not present in the Book of Mormon. It would seem that one that truly believes the Book of Mormon and what it teaches, they would have to reject Mormonism as it is today. On the other side, if one believed what the Mormon church currently teaches, then they would have to reject the Book of Mormon.
scripturesearcher wrote:1. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones 2. three Gods in the godhead 3. God the Father was once a man 4. existence of many gods 5. men may become gods 6. God is married 7. Jesus and Lucifer are brothers 8. mankind pre-existed as children of heavenly parents 9. three levels of heaven 10. baptism for the dead 11. doctrine of Celestial marriage
Based on the fact that the list above are not present in the Book of Mormon. It would seem that one that truly believes the Book of Mormon and what it teaches, they would have to reject Mormonism as it is today. On the other side, if one believed what the Mormon church currently teaches, then they would have to reject the Book of Mormon.
The Epistle of Jude doesn't mention baptism. Therefore, on the one hand, you must reject baptism, or on the other, reject Jude. The Song of Songs doesn't mention salvation by God's grace alone. Therefore, one must either reject salvation by grace alone, or reject the Song of Songs.
Do you see the problem with this?
"I'd say Joseph, that your anger levels are off the charts. What you are, Joseph, is a bully." - Gadianton "Antley's anger is approaching...levels of volcanic hatred." - Scratch
why me wrote:When emma was asked to rejoin the saints that were still in the area, she replied that there was too much pain involved and she would prefer to stay away. She hardly benefited from the 'con' as you put it. She lost her husband, brother in law, a child and was burned out of home a few times. What did she benefit? But pain.
She also continued to teach her children from the Book of Mormon after her husband was murdered. Now, it would have been great if she would have announced to the world, that it was all a con. But she didn't. She believed in her husband but not in polygamy. She missed the Kirtland joseph.
So says Bushman.
Like Bushman, you like to gloss over the embarrassing facts ..
After Jos. Smith's death she wanted William Marks to assume the presidency. She was not interested in walking away. She just lost the power struggle. She continued to own and live in the Nauvoo Mansion for years with her new husband after the Brighamites left as well as owning other properties. In terms of land and homes she remained wealthy. When her son had a vision (shock!!) they became affiliated with the RLDS in 1860 and he became its new president.
Why would Emma admit to the con when it provided her with wealth and power? What would she possibly have gained?
Do you suppose she longed for the money digging Joseph as well?
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
scripturesearcher wrote:1. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones 2. three Gods in the godhead 3. God the Father was once a man 4. existence of many gods 5. men may become gods 6. God is married 7. Jesus and Lucifer are brothers 8. mankind pre-existed as children of heavenly parents 9. three levels of heaven 10. baptism for the dead 11. doctrine of Celestial marriage
Based on the fact that the list above are not present in the Book of Mormon. It would seem that one that truly believes the Book of Mormon and what it teaches, they would have to reject Mormonism as it is today. On the other side, if one believed what the Mormon church currently teaches, then they would have to reject the Book of Mormon.
The Epistle of Jude doesn't mention baptism. Therefore, on the one hand, you must reject baptism, or on the other, reject Jude. The Song of Songs doesn't mention salvation by God's grace alone. Therefore, one must either reject salvation by grace alone, or reject the Song of Songs.
Do you see the problem with this?
No. I see no problem here. I don't see any mention in Jude or Song of Songs to claim to contain the fullness of the gospel. (by the way, I don't believe that baptism is required for salvation. I believe it is more of a symbol that is done out of obediance). I believe that the Bible does contain the complete gospel message. The problem that I see is that the Book of Mormon claims to contain the "fulness of the everlasting gospel" and to be "the most correct of any book on earth". Those claims seem to contradict the list of the topics that are not even present in the Book of Mormon.
So the question is: Is the Book of Mormon correct, or are the current teachings correct?
Here is what Current LDS President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the 12, Stated about a Year and a half ago:
"Any man who thinks he's going to the highest degree of glory without a woman at his side does not understand the gospel. Together, they control the fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one."
If the Book of Mormon truly contains the fullness of the Gospel, then how can a man not understand the Gospel when the Book of Mormon does Not teach anywhere within its Pages that a man must be married to go to the highest degree of glory???
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
scripturesearcher wrote:Is the Book of Mormon correct, or are the current teachings correct?
Both?
"I'd say Joseph, that your anger levels are off the charts. What you are, Joseph, is a bully." - Gadianton "Antley's anger is approaching...levels of volcanic hatred." - Scratch