Reasons Joseph Smith Is More Important Than Jesus [Mormon Merry Smithmas!]

Mormon Curtain.com ^ | Feb. 10, 2005

[reaganaut]

Do you get to talk with many EXmo’s about what the LDS was doing to them? What did it take for you to escape?

- - - - - -
Yes, I do. I am involved, in varying degrees with several of the ministries to Mormons and thus have a lot of Ex-Mo friends. The stories are about the same from all of us.

Re: What did it take for me to ‘escape’, the short answer was it took threads like this one. Even though I started to leave in the early days of the internet and thus wasn’t online, I knew some Christians who pointed things out like what we see here, confronted me, weren’t afraid to totally tick me off and make me angry. It was the anger and the desire to ‘prove’ the ‘antis’ were lying and taking things out of context that got me to reasearch, look up claims and quotes, compare footnotes of the antis and the LDS defenders rather than just repeat what I was told by other LDS. When I did the research (and I spent over a year on it) I discovered that it wasn’t the antis who were lying to me, it was my own church.

Leaving Mormonism was painful, and it cost me a great deal. However, our ways are not Gods, and when I moved back home from Utah after going ‘inactive’ in Mormonism, I had a good Christian friend (now my husband) who helped lead me to the Lord, a new job, my family back (I was disowned when I joined Mormonism) and it took being a Mormon and leaving that for God to break me enough so I could become a Christian. I hope that makes sense.

[reaganaut]

Nah, Elsie wasn’t scolding you, he was just channeling “mormon dude” whereas he replies as a faithful mormon redneck.

Issac Hale was never LDS (well not until after he died).

[annieokie]

Phewwwwwwwwww!!!!! that's a relief. I sure don't want ELSIE mad at me. rofl.

So Issac was "DEAD DUNKED", lol

The old saying,"You just can't make this stuff up", not true, Joseph Smith did.

Maybe you have the story of how this was invented by Joseph Smith to appease his father after another son had died without baptism. Gotta give ole' J.Smitty credit, he had an imagination.

[reaganaut]

Maybe you have the story of how this was invented by Joseph Smith to appease his father after another son had died without baptism.

- - - - - - -
That is pretty much it. Joe’s bro, Alvin, died before Joseph claimed to have gotten the plates. There is some question whether the doctrine was to appease his father (a Universalist and occultist) or his mother (more mainstream but still occultist), but there is no denying that the doctrine developed as a result of the question that Alvin would be condemned to hell because he was not baptized.

Here is the Wiki article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Smith_%281798-1823%29

And while not directly related, this article shows how the LDS version of events couldn’t have happened as they say it did (relating mostly to the first vision)

http://utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaims1.htm

[laweeks]

the LDS really do place this much empahsis on Joseph Smith

And he has led them straight to hell on the eternity express . . . why can't they see it?

[reaganaut]

And he has led them straight to hell on the eternity express . . . why can’t they see it?

- - - - - -
Ok, I will admit this answer may seem lame to those who have not been LDS, but those who have will understand it perfectly.

They can’t see it because they are told NOT to see it. The LDS responses you see here are not thought through individual responses. They are pat answers that they have been told. The LDS are conditioned to not think for themselves, in fact, they are often (I know I was) warned that researching the LDS chuch to much would cause me to ‘lose my testimony’ of Mormonism and lead to ‘apostasy’ (which is exactly what happened).

Mormons want the LDS church to be ‘true’ more than they want to know the truth - it is an emotional not a rational religion and the leadership (all the way back to Smith) feeds this. One way they do that is to ‘demonize’ all apostates and ‘antis’ and to constantly repeat the same things like “we don’t worship Joseph Smith”, “we love our Elder Brother” “Jesus is the Christ”, “Anti’s are only in it for the money” “we are Christians”, “Joseph Smith was an abolitionist” etc. without actually thinking about what they are saying or even looking at anything that is not ‘faith promoting’ and put out by the LDS church or apologists. They are discouraged from going into Christian bookstores and reading non LDS religious material. All their info becomes filtered through Mormonism.

There is a VERY High level of thought control in Mormonism, and the biggest breakthrough, the one that gets people to leave, is getting them to actually question and think for themselves.

They can’t see they worship Smith or that they are hell bound because they are brainwashed by constantly being told they are not doing those things and there really is no Hell as Christians believe.

[annieokie]

Here is a link to a website I use to obtain information on the mormans. This is not exactly what I wanted, but it gives insight on what they do, there is a good video there as well. Meanwhile I will continue to try and find the story of Smith making this ritual up.

http://1857massacre.com/MMM/lds_proxy_baptism_of_massacre_victims.htm

[Colofornian]

What thesaleboat (and Catholics in general) fails to recognize is that these new orthodox denominations (Lutherians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, etc.) didn't create from whole cloth but built on the foundation of the earlier church. This foundation is not the exclusive property of the Catholics and we Christians should never surrender it to them. The Church of Acts is our church, too.

Amen.

Also...please pay attention to my next two posts for a unique angle of looking at the historical Roman Catholic church -- diced and sliced in a similar manner to the way some Roman Catholics like to "slice and dice" Protestants.

[Colofornian]

How Old Is Your Church?

First of all, this is the wrong question. The "church" doesn't belong to people.
The true Church is not an organization; the Church is a living organism.
The true Church is not brick and mortar.
In the ultimate meaning of the word, the Church is not really even an institution -- even though out of necessity these days, it has institutional dimensions.

The Greek word for "church" is ecclesia -- or ekklesia. It means "called-out ones." In other words, the church is "people."

Yes, people wear all kinds of distinct identity labels. But ultimately God's people belong to...yup, you guessed it: God (not people -- as thesaleboat mistakenly implies).

What thesaleboat is really asking here is: "How Old are your denominational traditions?"

thesaleboat seems to be attempting to make a few points here:
* The Protestant church is divided; Roman Catholics aren't;
* Due to latter "start dates" for Protestant traditions, these are somehow not genuine.

Allow me to address the second point briefly here...and then I'll reinforce it AND tackle the first bullet point in the next post.

At least four Roman Catholic "orders" are commonly known:
* Benedictines, 6th century start;
* Franciscans, 13th century start;
* Dominicans, 13th century start though following in Augustinian rules going back centuries previous to that;
* Jesuits, 16th century start

Are you telling us, the saleboat...that because these were "man-made enterprises" (along with the dozens of other Catholic-umbrella orders)...and that ALL of them started quite Johnny-come-lately...that there's something not "genuine" or "authentic" about ALL of them?

Really?

And aren't these man-made orders simply set-apart sanctuaries and outposts for ministry and spiritual growth, with a thematic “rule” governing each one?

Hence, haven't they operated as a sort of “mini-denominations” operating under the broader umbrella of Roman Catholicism?

[Colofornian]

How Old Is Your Church?

Well, thesaleboat: How Old are Catholic-Umbrella Orders? (I think 'Sect-Orders' might even be a more appropro title)

As I mentioned in my last post: And aren't these man-made orders simply set-apart sanctuaries and outposts for ministry and spiritual growth, with a thematic “rule” governing each one? Hence, haven't they operated as a sort of “mini-denominations” operating under the broader umbrella of Roman Catholicism?

(And, btw, not all “orders” have had a Catholic umbrella; there's been Anglican, Church of England, Lutheran, Anglo-Catholic and other Protestant-based “orders” in history – some of which are still operative)

Anyway, as I mentioned on my last post, thesaleboat asked the wrong question...and didn't frame it well, anyway.

A similar question that Protestants can address Roman Catholics is:

“How Divided is the Historical Catholic Church – Per Breakdown of Its 'Sect-Orders?'”

IOW, the Catholic church is oft' presented by Catholics as one giant monolith. But it's not. And hasn't been in its history. Theologically it isn't so. Liberation theology has invaded Catholicism. Solid theological reform movements – like Jansenism – hit Catholicism in the 1600s after the Protestants hit them hard the previous century. And, of course, there've been other movements.

Some of the Roman Catholic order jumpstarters themselves bounced around before getting them off the ground. Take Isaac Thomas Hecker, founder of the Paulists (latter 19th century). Hecker was a Methodist-turned-transcendentalist-turned-member of the Catholic Redemptorist order before founding the Paulists. Hardly a “model heritage” deeply rooted Catholic.

And the “Romanizing party” was itself a party that grew stronger in the 7th century. As I look at the book of Acts, I don't see mention of “the Romanizing party” in the earliest church. Do you?

So it seems that as we look over the historical Roman Catholic church – we need a sliced-and-diced vantage point of Catholicism that unveils that Roman Catholicism isn't as “united” as it would like to present itself. Otherwise...
...why did all of these founders below...
...need to start their own endlessly diverse orders...
...based upon endlessly diverse “rules”?

Why couldn't have one said, “This is the rule of Christ. We'll follow it – and Him” ??? And then the rest of these man-made orders could have followed suit if generational stability and a unified front is so important.

Year Founded	Name of Order [a 'Mini-Denomination' of Sorts]	Man-Made Founder
6th century onward	Benedictine-Based [Break-offs Included]
525	Benectines	Benedict
Early 6th century	Female Benectines	Scholastica
Early 10th century	Cluny [many Southern France orders were reformed under 'Clunaic lines]	Odo
11th century	Vallumbrosians	John Gualbert
1100 A.D.	Fontrevault	Robert of Arbissel
1701	Mechlarists	Mechitar [w/16 others]
	Dominican/Augustinian Rule-based	Note: The Dominican order was NOT initial order based on Augustinian rule; hence not listed first
1120	Premonstratensions [also known as Norbertians]	Norbert [German-born who set up French orders and died residing in Italy]...so hardly a Middle-Ages localized presence only
Late 12th century	Trinitarians [reformed group called 'Barefoot Trinitarians' still exists]	John of Matha
1206	Dominicans	Dominic
1210	Franciscan-Based	Francis of Assisi
	Franciscans also known as Friars Minor; Some Lay Franciscans known as Franciscan tertiaries; some Franciscans came to be known as 'Observatist Franciscans' others as 'Recollect Franciscans' and then 'Discalced Franciscans'...Such 'unity' of names even within the Franciscan bunch, eh?
1557	Alcantarines [Spanish Discalced Franciscans]	Peter of Alcantara
Late 16th century	Camillans	Camillus [break-off of first Capuchins and then recollect Franciscans]
1540	Jesuit-Based
1540	Jesuits originally known as The Society of Jesus	Ignatius Loyola
	Cistercian-Based
About 1099	Cistercian	Robert of Molesne [with Stephen Harding as key early leader]
1084	Carthusians	Bruno
1128	Knights of Templar	Bernard of Clairvaux
Mid-12th century	Gilbertines [no local presence only; a network of 25 monasteries]	Gilbert of Sempringham
Latter-17th century	Trappists	Armand-Jean le Bouthillier De Rance'
	Ursulines/Carmelites-Based
Early 1500s	Ursulines	Angela Merici [Later, Barbe Jeanne Acarie helped establish Ursulines]
Latter 16th century	Discalced Carmelites	John of the Cross a leader, but not founder
1603	Carmelites	Barbe Jeanne Acarie
	Other Orders – Listed chronologically
961	Mt Athos	Athanasius the Athonite
Early 1000s	Camaldolesians	Romauld
1113	Victorines	William of Champeaux
Early 1200s	Poor Clares	Clare
1235	Mercedarines [Our Lady of Mercy]	Peter Nolasco and Raymond of Penafort
Latter 13th century	Celestines	Celestine
1346	Bridgetines	Bridget
1360	Gesuati	John Colombini
14th century	Sisters of the Visitation [the Jesuatesses]	Catherine, cousin of John Colombini
Latter 14th century	Brethren of the Common Life	Geert de Groote and Florentius Radewijns
1425	Oblates of Mary [Later called Oblates of Torde' Specchi]	Frances of Rome
1436	Minims [Ordo Fratres Minimorum]	Francis of Paola
1524	Theatines [break-off of Orators of Divine Love]	Cajetan and Giovanni Pietro Caraffa (Pope Paul IV)
1532	The Somaschi	Emiliani Jerome
1548	Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity	Philip Neri
1572	The Brothers Hospitalliers	John of God
	Cistercian-Based
1575	Oratorians	Philip Neri
16th century	Volokolamsk	Joseph of Volokolamsk
1597	Piarists	Joseph Calasanctius
Early 1600s	Jansenism [not an “order” but a theological reform movement]	Cornelius Otto Jansen
Very early 17th century	Visitation	Francis of Sales and Frances de Chantel
1633	Sisters of Charity, Lazarites	Vincent de Paul
1737	Vincent de Paul Society	Frederick Ozanam
1737	Passionists	Paul of the Cross
1835	Pious Society of Missions/Pallottini Fathers	Vincent Pallotti
1843	Similar Pious Society of Missions for women	Vincent Pallotti
Mid-19th century	Sisters of Providence/Fathers of Charity	Antonio Rosmini-Serbati
1859	Salesians [Female version: Daughters of Our Lady Help of Christians, 3rd largest Catholic order today]	Giovanni Melchior Bosco
1880	Sisters of the Sacred Heart	Frances Cabrini
Latter 19th century	Paulists [break-off of Redemptorists]	Isaac Thomas Hecker
1903	Catholic Daughters of the Americas
1917	Baptized and Unbaptized Disciples	Narayan Vaman Tilak
1933	Little Brothers of Jesus/Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart	Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald
1939	Sisters of Jesus	Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald
1958	Little Brothers of the Gospel	Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald
1965	Little Sisters of the Gospel	Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald

[reaganaut]

That is a good site. By far the best historical reference site is

www.utlm.org

also

Mormonoutreach.org is good as well

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Noahides gotcha ALL beat!! “

Sorry, but the Church God conceived before time began has everything on earth beat! :-)

[annieokie]

I found what I was looking for, regarding the DEAD DUNKING hoax, invented out of Joseph Smiths imagination. The article is the last one on that page. Interesting also to find that the Mormons have actually Dead Dunked HITLER, and was in the process of dunking many JEWs until they put a stop to it, (but how do they really know it was stopped)

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_necrobaptism_section1.html

[reaganaut]

Interesting also to find that the Mormons have actually Dead Dunked HITLER, and was in the process of dunking many JEWs until they put a stop to it, (but how do they really know it was stopped)

- - - - -
Actually they baptized Hitler more than once and they haven’t stopped baptizing Jews. There was a lawsuit threatened and they said they removed the names of the holocaust victims that were dead dunked however, it came out last year that most of them have been re-dead dunked.

BTW, they also ‘married’ and ‘endowed’ Jesus Christ. Sigh.

http://famousdeadmormons.com/index.php?pg=6&c=historical

click on a category on the side then click ‘older’ to get a list (list is not exhaustive).

[reaganaut]

Article on Jesus and Mary -

http://latterdaymainstreet.com/2010/06/07/to-jesus-and-mary-now-mormon-and-married-mazel-tov/

[Elsie]

Sounded like you were scolding me, lol hope not.

Oh NO!

---

Sorry 'bout that screed from MD. He(?) slips in from time to time when I am away from the keyboard and types in the most outrageous things!

[annieokie]

""""BTW, they also ‘married’ and ‘endowed’ Jesus Christ.""""

Oh yes, I did read that one. I believe they also Dead Dunked HIM as well.

Still dunking the Jews? How pathetic, these people are literally CRAZY, CRAZY, CRAZY.

Do you think many new converts really know this stuff? How long did it take you to figure it out? I am a curious sort, lol, and I enjoyed reading the EXmo's discussing this on that link I just gave. Some of them are really mad about being LIED to.

I just had a theory and it goes to Control of the peons. You know when you get something in the mail, and it has all those scratch off thingys, or stickers to attach to something on another page? It is all designed to give you something to do, thinking you have done your job and you are going to win. Keep them occupied and no time to think.

[Elsie]

So Issac was "DEAD DUNKED", lol

And will will too; Sweetie: you will too.

--MormonDupe(Resistance is not only futile; it is foolish.)

[Elsie]

So Issac was "DEAD DUNKED", lol

And you will too; Sweetie: you will too.

--MormonDupe(Resistance is not only futile; it is foolish.)

[Elsie]

All their info becomes filtered through Mormonism.

Just like JWs...