You said: DelphUser,
It takes a deluded true-believer of the highest order to believe my deconstruction of Joseph Smith constitutes slander. First of all, what I’ve written cannot be considered slander of you personally (unless you are Joseph Smith reincarnated). So slinging the slander term around is just another spin by you to attempt to portray me as a name caller. By your definition I would be a slanderer if I said Alexander the Great was an adulterer who believed he was a God (let’s see that lawsuit stick in court).
Gee, right here you call em deluded, all i was pointing out is you are consistent in your name calling.
In your prior post you attributed motives to me, called me names, and here you are questioning my intelligence. You also keep saying my "True colors will come out (even when I showed them to you...) inferring that I am being disingenuous, in fact, many of your posts attribute us to being dishonest in representing what we believe.
To me specifically , this is funny, because as soon as some one interested in my church hears me change tune they will run for the door (which is not barred) so to not tell the bald unequivocal truth is not doing me any favors. On the other hand as the expose on the God Makers movie posted on this very thread (here's a link for any who missed it
The Truth About "The God Makers") Shows that our detractors (which is not to say you specifically FC) are willing to lie about us. So who to believe, if you lie and they don't investigate the church to see if you are lying and you get away "Scott free" with lying no loss of credibility, with them, just with God, I on the other hand if i lie to get someone to Join, A) they will find out and B) they will leave C) they will talk about how I lied to them and my credibility takes a hit.
If someone Joins the church after hearing a lie from an anti Mormon, their statement of being lied to by the anti is going to be seen more as a profession of faith than an indictment, so the antis again get away with outrageous behavior.
Luckily for us, because there is no way to get "Caught" in this life being an anti, many on your side stoop to such outrageous behavior that those who are curious (or even who were not curious before) "Check out" our church and thus become members when they find it to be true.
You said: Name calling, my Rosy Red Posterior - here is the Philanderer Joseph Smith’s “marriage” record from the Mormon Family genealogy site:
It's called Polygamy, not philandering, calling it something it's not is name calling, you might be beautiful, calling you ugly would be name calling, If you don't know don't use labels, 'K?
{SNIP} (Because I do get comments about overly long posts, I will not copy your cut and paste here.)
"Glass Gazing" is a derogatory name like saying "Visionary Man" like Laman and Lemuel did about their father, oops, that's a correct slang term form the correct time in Jerusalem that Joseph had no way of knowing that the time so you'd better ignore that, you might wonder...
Oh, and you wish I would leave all your statements alone, I know, too bad.
You said: How in hell can it be name calling when you admit he had his own army, AND he was arrested in part for treason against Illinois for declaring martial law in Nauvoo. If that isn’t a tinpot general, what is?
Tin pot generals run an army of Five and have lots of medals they made in their garage. Joseph commanded 5,000 and did not wear phony medals. if he had wanted to turn Nauvoo into a fortress, he could have and it would have taken the continental army to get him out. Not the actions of a tin pot to turn himself in.
You said: But if they are a False Prophet, and you didn’t call them such, then you’d lose your own soul. So False Prophet stands.
Please show me the scripture that says you have to run around pointing out ever false prophet.
If he was a Prophet, where is your soul then?
Have you read the book of Mormon with faith and prayed? IF not then you don't know.
You said: Well, when you have a list of crimes as long as old Joe, then scaliwag fits.
Joseph was accused of crimes many times, so was Jesus, I would never call Jesus a Scaliwag, your logic would demand that.
You said: He was a purveyor of seer stone revelations, how much more “carni” can you get?
Easy, you could perform miracles in front of a pharaoh, or part a sea, or cause water to spring from a rock. Turn water into wine, heal the "Sick" and even raise the "Dead". I am surprised you are not an atheist with an attitude like that.
You said: Einsteins birth called into question everyone’s intelligence, so it is hardly name calling to point out a lack of reasoning.
With that line, I see why you would say it, I however am not intimidated by anyone elses intelligence (YMMV). Projecting your feelings of inadequacy onto me and then confessing my lack of intelligence for me is still not allowed on this forum and is not accurate.
You said: “A great man” and another big time polygamist. But he did get his talk on moon-men into print:
I am aware of Joseph Smith's discussion of a common belief that the moon might be populated, as recalled over thirty years later by someone not involved in the conversation, and that making it into print, but I am unaware of any comments by Brigham Young, got a link?
You said: It is not a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, it is...
You said: The Egyptian hieroglyphics have been translated and say nothing at all what Joseph Smith babbled on about, that is not a matter of opinion.
Translations are always a matter of opinion.
You said: Non-existence of Lamanite cities is not an opinion.
I have seen pictures of ruins that in my opinion were cites from the Book of Mormon.
Joseph Smith running his own seccessionist army is not an opinion.
The Army did not try to succeed form the union, was chartered as was the City of Nauvoo, and in my opinion was not used to such effect by direct revelation from God.
You said: His polygamy and philandering is not an opinion.
Did he have multiple wives? Yes, Was he a philander? No, not in my opinion.
You said: I don’t assume I am correct, I test the validity of Joseph Smith step by step.
So, when do you read the BOM and ask in faith to see if it's true.
You said: And it won’t be shut down as long as we ignore Joseph Smith’s example
OF what? enforcing lawful orders by the city council? (Joseph and the City Council all believed what they were doing was completely legal and within their rights, in my opinion, they could have been a bit more restrained and allowed the courts to be more involved, but is is only my opinion and I know it.
I said: One of the reasons FR is loved by conservatives is because of the reason displayed by most of the posters here, Some posters get quite unreasonable when it comes to religion, even to the point of attacking other peoples religion, it’s interesting actually from a human relations perspective to see where these people fall on actually working with these people of other religions, but I will not report my conclusions he
You said: Oooooohhh, you’ve slandered me there (by your definition anyway). I am soooo hurt.
I do not believe your name appears anywhere in this paragraph, if you are associating yourself with these negative behaviors I am describing, that is in your mind, not mine.
You said: Cause he harbored fugitives.
Get a grip, or a link, or something...
You said: Joe and Hyrum were running for office based on telling people God told them to vote for them
Do we have anything more then your word that they were telling people this?
You said: Telling the truth isn’t slander. I know that’s a difficult concept for you.
I am beginning to see that you may not know the difference between truth and your own opinion, this would explain why you want to call your opinion "Truth".
Helen Mar Kimbal also was a staunch defender of polygamy, her explanation shows she was not brain washed, but went into polygamy with faith.
Just curious would you refer to all arranged marriages through all the ages as men pimping out their daughters? What about royalty marrying kings to daughters of other counties to seal a treaty, is that "pimping out a Queen"?
You said: Joseph Smith is a polygamist who never ever ever slept with another woman other than Emma. I believe that. Sure I doB You are perfectly welcome to believe whatever you want, however, that does not make it a fact. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
You said: Well, you are a back stabber, so at least I’m truthful.
Please show where I have ever back stabbed anyone figuratively of physically.
As for truth, I'll happily let the lurkers make up their own minds on who is being truthful.
You said: No more so than the opposite case - if Joseph Smith is true, then all the rest of us are abomination. So by definition one of us has an occult world view, you are just too dishonest to come ourt and say it.
This is part of the Crux of this whole thing, I believe you can be wrong about something without being evil, you don't give me that same benefit of the doubt.
You call me dishonest, who is Going to know what i believe me or you?
I do not believe you are an abomination, I do not believe you are an apostate (I have no idea if you ever joined the LDS church) I do not believe you are Hell bound (I'll help you aim as high as I can)
Maybe you just need to know the real definition of
Occult.
You said: They don’t attribute the power to keep out evil to their garments.
I have never said such, the power is in the covenants, not the cloth, the attribution of my belief in some pieces of cloth, is unfounded.
You said: Fairest religion? oh yeah, I’ve seen the results of your fairness.
So, you have been tot he afterlife and seen how unbelieve are treated? When did you get resurrected?
You said: Your insincerity drips from most of your posts.
Funny, your attribution is again wide of the mark, I am at times sarcastic, I am at times humorous, I am at times irreverent, but I would not bother to post if I was not sincere.
You said: Just don’t pray to Joseph Smith for me (he must be a God somewhere by now), I’d rather take my chances on Scientology than wishing on Kolob to sayve me
Don't worry, I am praying to Jesus for your.
I only have time to address one point right now, but it is a cucial one.
“You said:FC: The Egyptian hieroglyphics have been translated and say nothing at all what Joseph Smith babbled on about, that is not a matter of opinion.”
[DU:Translations are always a matter of opinion.]
Absolutely false.
Translate this “Eres muy mentiroso.”. Let’s see if you come up with a different interpretation than I meant.
The fact is, if one thread in the Joseph Smith story breaks, the whole thing falls apart. If the Heieroglyphic were funerary calls to Egyptian Gods instead of the Book of Abraham, then Joseph Smith was a bald faced liar.
But your own Mormon hieroglyphic expert, Hugh Nibley, ended up believing Josph Smith’s translation was a fake:
[ While one has to depend upon Joseph Smith’s own story and the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses concerning the plates, in the case of the Book of Abraham it can be established with certainty that Joseph Smith had some ancient Egyptian papyri which were purchased from Michael Chandler while he was in Kirtland, Ohio. While there is no question about the papyri’s authenticity, many people have had. serious reservations regarding the accuracy of Smith’s translation. Unfortunately, while Joseph Smith had the papyri in his possession the science of Egyptology was in its infancy. Therefore, Joseph Smith’s work as a translator could not be adequately tested. To make matters worse, after Smith’s death the Mormon Church lost control of the papyri and it was believed that they were destroyed in the Chicago fire.
Since neither the gold plates nor the Egyptian papyri were available, it appeared that Joseph Smith’s ability as a translator would never be tested. However, on November 27, 1967, the church’s Deseret News announced one of the most significant events in Mormon Church history:
“NEW YORK—A collection of papyrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.... Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called ‘Facsimile No. 1’ and published with the Book of Abraham.”
After the papyri were recovered by the church, many Mormons felt that Joseph Smith’s work would be vindicated. Church apologist Hugh Nibley, however, was not optimistic about the matter and warned his people that there was trouble ahead. On Dec. 1, 1967, the Daily Universe, published at Brigham Young University, reported these statements by Dr. Nibley: “The papyri scripts given to the Church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true,’ Dr. Hugh Nibley... said Wednesday night. ‘LDS scholars are caught flatfooted by this discovery,’ he went on to say.”
Since Nibley was supposed to be the Mormon Church’s top authority on the Egyptian language, such a pessimistic assessment must have jolted Mormons who read his comments. After all, anyone could see that there were three rows of hieroglyphic writing on the right side of the papyrus which Joseph Smith used as Facsimile No. 1 in his Book of Abraham. In addition, another row of hieroglyphic writing appeared on the left side of the papyrus. Since the papyrus was surrounded by Egyptian writing, how could it fail to prove the Book of Abraham? If Joseph Smith really knew how to translate Egyptian, the writing would prove that the scene found in Facsimile No. 1 showed “The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.”
As it later turned out, when the writing found on the papyrus was translated by Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, it became clear that the papyrus was a pagan document which had absolutely no relationship to Abraham. The translation, in fact, revealed that the papyrus was really made for a dead man named “Hor”—after the Egyptian god Horus. Experts who have examined this papyrus agree that it is drawing of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead, being prepared for burial by the god Anubis. The fact that this is a funerary papyrus is made clear in Dr. Baer’s translation of the line on the left side of the papyrus: “May you give him a good, splendid burial on the West of Thebes just like...” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, page 117) Since the text of Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham says that Abraham survived the attempt to take his life, there would have been no reason to speak of burial. Furthermore, the Egyptians would not have given a sacrificial victim a “splendid burial on the West of Thebes.”
Since the Egyptian papyri did not support Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham, Hugh Nibley was not anxious for a translation to come forth. In the Spring 1968 issue of Brigham Young University Studies, page 251, Dr Nibley made this revealing comment: “We have often been asked during the past months why we did not proceed with all haste to produce a translation of the papyri the moment they came into our possession....it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm.” ]
Here’s a full analysis:
http://www.nowscape.com/mormon/papyrus/by_his_own_hand.htm
Joseph Smith even made his own drawings of the hieroglyphics, so if theose drawings show a man named Hor was the subject of the papyri, then all of Mormon theology collapses in flames.
Good luck explaining Hugh Nibley away.