Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ

LDS.org ^ | Dennis B. Neuenschwander

[Elsie]

...I am just speaking of an agressive witnessing method....

There is hardly ANY 'witnessing' going on here: it is ALMOST 100% heresy exposing and false teaching REBUKING.

[Clique]

>Your list of Apostles is a list of straw men.

It is not my list; it is history. I merely call attention to the fact that the word “apostle” has more meanings that only the 12 who traveled with Jesus. The word has been used throughout history by various churches to describe someone their religion considers to have been “called” to be a messenger. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_%28Christian%29

>In the first century , there were 12 Apostles, 12 disciples.

You are incorrect; there were at least fourteen apostles. You overlook Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas. You also overlook Paul, who became an apostle after the death of the Savior.

You are also incorrect about the disciples. Jesus had scores, perhaps even hundreds of disciples during his lifetime.
Quote — “The term apostle ... should not be confused with a disciple (who is a follower or a student who learns from a “teacher”).” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_%28Christian%29

>Your question at the end of your missive is a moot point...

My questions were directly specifically to Mr. Robinson.It is for him to decide whether he considers them moot or wishes to answer them.

[Elsie]

Then again maybe it would be best not to have a Religion Forum and just unite on the Godly principles that unites us as a people to keep the constitution strong.

BEGONE, HERETIC!

[Clique]

>BEGONE, HERETIC!
= = = = =

Why do Christians on this thread persist in name calling?

Has civil discourse ceased among conservatives?

Are Freepers becoming like the “progressives,” who love to shout down anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with their liberal ideas?

Please, people... Let’s not abandon courtesy entirely.

[Clique]

Oops. I forgot the Apostle Barnabas. (Acts 14:14)

Sorry.

[DelphiUser]

Now du, it was explained quite clearly with all the other passages I cited in the synoptics.

There is a Huge difference between quoting scripture, and interpreting scripture. You are doing the latter.

Your "hints" are you interpreting scripture to mean what you want it to say.

2 Peter 1:20

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Now try real hard du to apply some common sense.

Now try real hard and stick to the scriptures when you try to tell me what God thinks because Truly, you can't read his mind.

Jesus never said that the first marriage was in force. Tell me Godzilla, is it Adultery to have sex if neither person has been married? (Don't quibble about fornication)

if all sex outside of marriage is adultery your analogy falls apart right there.

You go on for a while about breaking marriage bonds, which I am not saying Polygamy is doing, in fact it does not.

The perverted sense of our society today is not God's standard now is it Du.

Agreed, thus modern law cannot be used to bolster scripture and scripture must stand on it's own as the moral authority.

It is sooooo funny to watch you squirm and squiggle to get out of a jam du. What you or they 'believe' external to the scripture doesn't count for squat. But adding to the bible is just what mormons like to do anyway now isn't it.

It is funny to watch you accuse me of what you are doing (it's called projection) I don't CARE about polygamy, I don't intend to have more than one wife. You do care, because if polygamy is biblical, you just lost a Cause célèbre for condemning Joseph Smith.

Jesus never mentions polygamy, not once. He condemns divorce and anyone who remarries is committing polygamy. Period end of story the Catholics have this one absolutely right in theory, in practice, well we all know the Kennedy's seem to get annulments years and grown children later... But that is another discussion

Polygamy was specifically authorized several times in the bible and never condemned except for twisted "personal" interpretations.

I asked if the Indians were breaking the law by having more than one squaw, and what law that would be...

If they were under federal jurisdiction at the time - most likely, dependent upon the LAW and treaty with the tribes. But hey, we are not talking about lamanites here du - we are talking about an American citizen and THOSE laws he engraved into mormon doctrine that mormons were REQUIRED to follow the law of the land.

Did I say what time period? I could have a lot of fun here, but that is not my purpose. So Indians are under federal jurisdiction for marriage? LOL! Why do you think they don't pay taxes? Why can't states collect sales tax on all those cigarrets? Because they are granted a similar charter to the charter Nauvoo was granted. They don't grant those anymore, but the state law did not apply to Nauvoo and there was no federal law. so it was not "Illegal". No matter how you twist, the truth just won't bend.

As for the Nauvoo expositor, polygamy was not the only thing they were saying, today such a rag would be sued out of existence almost as fast as the city council ordered it destroyed in that day.

The Nauvoo expositor is a red herring anyway, it has no bearing on the Biblical legitimacy of Polygamy, and actually, Neither does Illinois law.

You keep reminding me of the cartoon character who steps from one rake to another getting smacked over and over.

Wrong again Du - he was also in voilation of state laws as well. Smith's polygamous marriages occurred in Illinois in the early 1840s. The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal.

Bigamy, simply put is having more than one legally married spouse.

I believe it was you who argued on another thread that they were not legal marriages and went on to show that no marriage license was procures so the marriages were not recognized outside of Nauvoo. You guys can't have it both ways, either they were legal marriages, or they weren't. Did Nauvoo have the jurisdiction to marry people or did it not? If it did, then it had jurisdiction, if it did not then the marriages were not legal and since no children of Joseph's exist from any wife but Emma, you'll have a hard tome proving carnal relations were happening.

Then for the next rake, the JOD discourse (in volume 20 no less) is well after Joseph was martyred and the Exodus from Nauvoo. So it has no bearing on the happenings in Nauvoo.

Getting tired of digging your self in deeper du?

Nope, enjoying watching you step back and forth between the rakes.

So, marriages in Nauvoo, which had a charter that allowed them to enact and enforce their own laws not with standing, the temple marriages for which there were no offspring and no marriage certificate are evidence to you that Joseph was a bad man.

I'm going to quote to you from a site that will surprise you, Light Planet an anti Mormon site has a copy of the Nauvoo city charter. here is a quotation:

One important provision stated that the Nauvoo Council could pass any ordinances not repugnant to the constitutions of the United States or that of Illinois. This, in effect, empowered the Nauvoo body to stand in a federated position with the Illinois General Assembly. Ordinances passed by the Nauvoo Council could be in direct violation or disregard of state law and still be valid in Nauvoo, provided they did not conflict with specific powers granted by the federal and state constitutions. Leaders of the city militia, known as the Nauvoo Legion, and the university trustees could also pass laws, limited only by state and federal constitutions.

There was no constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy. There still is no constitutional amendment that prohibits polygamy.

Nauvoo had the right to have polygamous marriages, and even bigamous ones if it wanted . and all you r pouting and bleating about bigamy laws that weren't enacted until later and quotations from people in Utah won't change the FACT that Joseph smith did not break any laws against having more than one wife.

All your bleating and interpreting won't change the FACT that Jesus never condemned polygamy, only Divorce.

all your simpering and whimpering won't change the FACT that Polygamy was approved of by God in the Bible, and the additional FACT that God does not change, therefore if he approved of it often in the Bible, it's not going to be a sin now.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

The facts are against you, you keep quoting things that are out of time for attacking Joseph, the Bible does not agree with your interpretation, and you keep inserting things and then accusing me of doing so. Again, you lost... again.

Polygamy is Biblical, this is a fact.

Denying facts is insanity.

Delph

[Syncro]

As far as I am concern there is no longer a need for a LDS Caucus thread.

There are many who feel that way.

They ignore the caucus LDS threads.

If you feel they are not needed, then you can not post to them.

One thing would be nice is if those who opposed the LDS would clarify their thread title(Anti LDS) So other posters are not confused and blame the LDS for all those non-descript Open threads

I think that should be up to those that post the threads.

I would prefer (Mainstream Historical Jesus Truth Thread.)

IMO FR posters are smart enough to discern between posts by Christian posters vs Mormon posters.

I also think as an LDS when reading the title Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ it would not register in our minds the way others would perceived it.

Of course it wouldn't. That's part of the problem.

Christians would see it as saying that Smith is an Apostle of the historical Biblical Jesus Christ, and for Mormons it would register however LDS see it

Perhaps you could respond to my post #872 to you the other day.

Many of us would like to know how Mormons feel about the official writings of the LDS belief system in the areas sited in that post.

It would clear up many of the misunderstandings.

Thank you.

[DelphiUser]

No there isn't du - what you 'teach' is a placebo effect along with reinforcement of behavior - common with controlling cults.

What I teach is Biblical, what you teach is Secular.

Du you are now misrepresenting what I have specifically stated in the past - but then that is par for the course when the exchange is going poorly for you.

Actually, it's not. you tell people to rely on your analysis, and then you spend lots of time at it. praying in faith is not something I have ever seen you seriously promote.

as for things "going poorly" you're projecting again.

Delph

[restornu]

Many of us would like to know how Mormons feel about the official writings of the LDS belief system in the areas sited in that post.

It would clear up many of the misunderstandings.

Thank you.

***

In all due respect how would it clear up any misunderstandings sinse your mind seems to be already made up!

[DelphiUser]

I found nothing of value or import in your post, but I don't want you to feel sleighed that I didn't respond, so this is as meaningful, actually more so than your post.

Delph

[restornu]

BTW It is amazing one how you can speak for my personal experiences that many Freepers think those non-descript open post come from someone else, when in so many of their replies they are blaming the LDS for all those endless daily barge of LDS threads.

Do you think Free Republic is a Religion Forum or a place to defend the constitution?

Many, many over the years have been zotted from all faiths who original purpose was a Free Republic.

[DelphiUser]

So the NEGATIVE stuff comes straight from LDS presses - why is that upsetting MORMONs so?

Typical...

The negative posts are coming from anti Mormons, not the LDS presses, you might want to look at the little names at the top of the posts in bold. you might make some new friends.

Delph

[TiaS]

Please forgive me for incorrect spelling of Mormon. I just noticed I had done that and it was probably a Fruedian slip.

[Syncro]

"Your list of Apostles is a list of straw men."

It is not my list; it is history

Nit picking, you know what I meant.

In the first century , there were 12 Apostles, 12 disciples.

You are incorrect; there were at least fourteen apostles. You overlook Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas. You also overlook Paul, who became an apostle after the death of the Savior.

That's immaterial to my point. If it is that important to you, what about Barnabas?

Obviously the history lesson is superfluous to this conversation, but thanks anyway.

My point was that that the 12 originals were unique.

Disciples and Apostles.

Yes I know, I didn't say original, and that gave you the opening to continue the history lesson, not pertainate to this communication.

The point is that Christians relate to the original Apostles as being Apostles of Jesus Christ, not someone who declares himself such with no overseeing authority so as to give credence to a false belief system.

As far as the question to Mr. Robinson (I was only speaking about one of them, not both) it's much too hypothetical imo.

Catholics would never post a title like you suggested.

But good luck, maybe you will get a hypothetical answer!

[Religion Moderator]

No problem.

[DelphiUser]

Biblical not a man made doctrine. Sorry to burst your bubble. And ONE God means ONE God, not 3 gods united in purpose. You sound like Clinton.

Not according to Jesus and the analogy he drew between his and God the Father's oneness and the oneness the disciples should have, it's in John 17 in case you actually care to look it up (Don't go there it's a trap! the Mormons have edited your bible in your house!!!!)

And God does not teach man can become Gods that is a lie from Satan.

Satan did indeed tell Eve that she would be "as the Gods knowing Good from evil" The thing about Satan is you can't even rely on him to lie all the time. God confirms in Genesis that Eve had become as the Gods knowing good from evil. Prove me wrong. Try looking at Genesis 3:5,22 you'll see that God says Satan's promise came true, well one of them. I guess he was willing to tell them a truth to get them to swallow (pun intended) the lie that they wouldn't die.

Delph “Just for the record, believing in Christ is a work”

It is a work of GOD, not a work of us. If you stick your hand out to receive a gift, did you earn it? Is it a work? No. (John 6:29).

LOL! I don't think you are applying that correctly, but believe what you wish, I really am not here to try to convince you to do anything but pray more.

And I know much more about Mormonism than you ever will. And I know more about the Bible than you do as well, that is obvious.

ROTFLOL!!!

Now, not only can you read and comprehend what is in my mind now, you can extrapolate the future. So, what number am I thinking of? (BTW, unless this rule has changed too, mind reading is not allowed on the forums)

I love how the LDS keep taking James out of context and ignore the rest of the New Testament. They manipulate the Bible and twist scripture for their own ends THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY IT IS CORRUPT!

You know, when I talk to you, I know exactly what you mean!!!

BTW, I am never afraid of anything Mormon, Satan no longer has power over me.

You know, just when you stop worrying about being misled is when you are in the most danger, but have it your way.

Delph

[DelphiUser]

satan said he'd become a God too

There is a big difference between relying on Jesus' grace to save you and trying to break down the doors of heaven with a battering ram.

Delph

[Clique]

>Catholics would never post a title like you suggested.

I would not be shocked or offended if a Catholic wrote an article titled “Pope Benedict XVI is an Apostle of Jesus Christ.”

It is my understanding that Catholics consider the Pope to be the successor to the Apostle Peter. Whether I agree with that premise or not doesn’t matter. My opinion shouldn’t keep them from posting such an article in their caucus.

In fact, I might find the article interesting and informative. But either way, that title certainly wouldn’t offend me.

Would it offend you?

[DelphiUser]

Delph We have one God. We worship the God of Abraham and of Issac and of Jacob.

Godzilla And what is the name of that 'God' Du? Jehovah? Elohim, Adoni, El Shaddai? Name him.

I AM

He has many other names as well.

Don't ask me to list them for you, do some research yourself.

Delph