Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ

From the teachings of Mormonism and Delhi's personal links on his "expereinces" with Mormonsim...it is not a far cry to say it appears there is allot of "spritualism" and practices of...which we are warned not to do and with good reasons.

New Agers and many of the occult groups practice this sort of thing...calling on one or more entity to confirm or inquire concerning the path their life should take...in religious matters it is all the more dangerous and leads people to rely on these enties and the expereinces they have with them...which of course is exactly their intentions...to keep a stronghold on the individual..and they do just that.

Addditionally, and which compounds the problem of dealing in the spiritual worldis, is many of these expereinces are also manufactured within the imaginations of the individual mind and are not real at all, though they appear to be so in the individuals mind.

What you see outside your brain appears to be very real, but what you are really seeing is a re-creation of the that world in your brain. You can change the perceived world within you, but that does not directly change the “outside world” regardless of you hard you want it to change. This difficult for many to accept, since there’s a sense of a loss in control. But reality is what it is…reality.

The problem I have with Momonism spirituality is that it focuses on an existence of things (manifestations) outside the body without any regard of evidence for existence, other than comments like ...“I just know this is real”....

It is important to keep in mind that past and future” do not exist outside of the brain and are actually both mental projections and are dependent upon memory.

BTW "Moroni" is a favorite in the occults.

Very well put and understandable Reaganaut....interesting to. You are correct how one might engage with those "seasoned" well and deep into Mormonism, who teach and encourage others to inquire about Mormonism is always going to be much more confrontational...and needs to be so... in order to expose them and their teachings for the lies that they are....so that even they "might" see the truth. But generally that is not their purpose in posting.

I was very glad to see you post the second, and vital step especially. And so significant.... It is not enough to reveal falsehood, (there are oceans of other false teachers who are waiting in the wings to pounce), but the real work of restoring or introducing one to a life of freedom in the Lord must begin with knowing that they are His...and they knowing they are His....

... Many Mormons simply are not, and are blind to that fact. Others, who at some point in their life did give their life to the Lord might want to rededicate their life to Him anew, once they see how far they have fallen away. Some who were young in the faith and tricked by Mormonism...or caught up at a time when life seemed confusing to them or facing hard times......many coming out of cults or false religions do just that.

Hopefully they will understand how jubilant we Christians are for them.... that God sent people to rescue them and they reached out their hand and took hold of His. Makes me think of a very old Hymn..."Throw out the Lifeline"..or something of that nature. And no doubt the throngs of angels in heaven rejoice with us.

When you see medics and fireman on rescue missions...there's often allot of yelling and such in their attempts of rescue....they know they have to get past the "fog" in the victims mind. Once away from the danger far enough these 'gentle giants' are seen with hearts and love bigger than most of us can know. I am convinced those who have their mission to rescue those in Mormonism are much the same.

Proud to know that FR cares to rescue the perishing as well as much as they do Saving our country. It is indeed a privilege to come here.

It is important to view scripture in its context...as we see in the following verse ‘the reference’ is to false teachings’ by those who teach them. So you are correct IMO. It is an admonition to test these teachings...and the final authority is God's word as the standard to measure these by, without taking those scriptures out of the context in which they are written.

” For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh...... Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7 )

This scripture...”Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?” , oftentimes is pulled out of context and used by others who are caught up in “spiritualism”...regardless of their religion.

We live in an age where emotionalism is at an all time high...where moral relativism dictates to many....and this is cascading into the churches as well. We all see this...and should be no surprise... as Jesus said these times would come and many who will be deceived who have turned from the truth.

We are told not to communicate with the spirit world...or to seek doing so, but it is especially attractive to those who seek more than the sufficiency of Christ. Additionally, It is easier to accept a ‘visual’ presentation then to do the hard work of studying to show thyself approved unto God...and invest in establishing a relationship with Him. It's the drive-by and quick McDonald's mindset of our times. And this generation is entrenched in all that's visual.

However, I do believe there are those who are called to minister in foreign lands where “spiritualism” is very deep, dark and rampant. These are rare and ‘specific’ people called by God who equips them to work in such an environment, and not to be confused with the bibbity-bobbity-boo stuff so many stage Pastors are known for...or we learn about in some Christian denominations where this sort of practice is frequent and often a large part of their services.

We must remember that satan enjoys a show...and he certainly can and does mimic heeling's and ‘wondrous’ happenings to engage people. Further we are told that as the day approaches, and more and more as people turn away from the truth and solid biblical teaching....the void will be filled by counterfeit and deceptive ‘practices’ which might look like what they are not.

Of recent years our country has been invaded by others who bring with them voo-dooish practices....Hinduism and a host of other Eastern style religions which our society has been primed to accept. Many have infiltrated the churches in a very seductive and deceptive way and it is an agenda to bring down the core of our faith. It's working on the ill-informed and easily excitable...as well as used to attract attendance in churches which are loosing revenues as the great Apostasy begins.

I wish I could say I was a more active FReeper over that last year but personal and work-related constraints have limited my time here (including not being able to update the FR Lexicon in 2010...sorry about that).

(Thank you for your contributions here)

...I never participated on any of the religious threads...a subject (personal religious beliefs) which I don't think really should ever have been delved into on FR.

(Well, unfortunately some of the "There-are-two-subjects-you-should-never-discuss"-people never could bring themselves to cross the second bridge here...I believe this Web site has aptly proved the assumption on both counts to be quite faulty...)

... it would only lead to a distraction from common conservative principles we all espouse...I was worried that it would lead to unnecessary infighting...

Batter...most of your comments were well-reasoned, well-stated (I, of course, disagree with your critique of JimRob & the moderators).

But here is the crux of the part of your statement at its weakest -- something I had to read three times before it became glaring to me...which means, I'm sure most will also miss it like I did the first two times reading it -- even Christians who embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your assumption seems to be that (a) The Gospel of Jesus Christ is "unnecessary" to share with others; and (b) Division is ALWAYS terrible.

Just five posts after yours -- post #1,283 -- F15Eagle addressed the (b) portion of your comments when he mentioned key words of Jesus: Luke 12:51 KJV Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Hence the Gospel of Jesus Christ applied will divide!

Ultimately, Batter, "common conservative principles" will not save us -- individually or as a nation.

GOD does that.

And the true God will not tolerate rivals of trust -- no matter how noble they are.

The "Common conservative principles" you mentioned are VERY important! But they are not ultimately; because ultimately, this nation will one day fail -- like every nation.

The Bible says the USA will one day come to an end. It will have served God's sovereign purposes within His world.

I cannot accurately convey the personal heartache & internal cringing I felt in the immediate and lingering aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina. This was not only for the victims involved, but also as I daily heard the MSM repeat the daily liberal mantra that it was the government's job to save people and the government should be treated as the "ultimate savior."

You see, the reason why the liberal Democrats treat government as a "god" is because they recognize no higher power or transcendent entity than human government! Government is their manipulatable substitute god!

Sorry. But all of the above is outright heresy not only from a Christian perspective, but from a historic conservative perspective -- which never divorced our faith from the causes of liberty!!!

So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (Jesus, John 8:36)

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Apostle Paul, Galatians 5:1)

--In John 8, Jesus was addressing the religious legalists, whom He called "children of the devil."
--In Gal. 5:1, Paul had earlier in that same letter asked "who bewitched" a people who thought that what was begun in the spirit could now be finished in religious fleshly efforts of legalism. Religious legalism -- not only liberal socialism -- was indeed that stranglehold of a "yoke of slavery."

Batter, even conservative principled humanism will eventually crumble; it won't be able to deliver its promised deliverables. It does rely upon, after all, mere human fleshly efforts. The prophet Jeremiah told us, "the arm of flesh will fail you."

But there was one arm of flesh that didn't fail us.

Jesus Christ.

And He defined eternal life by saying we need to know "the true" Father (John 17:3). He didn't say a relationship with any ole' God would do. No, He specifically defined eternal life as relational -- with "the ONLY TRUE God."

And our Republican ancestors before us did not shrink back from addressing the "hard issues" that separated us from fellow religious conservatives in the 19th century.

The Mormons were a conservative people in the 1850s. They were "fellow religious-ites," if you will.

Yet the fledgling Republican party gave birth to "twins" in 1856. Those "twins?" It openly tackled the "twin relics of barbarism" -- slavery and polygamy.

It didn't play this game of "we-better-cater-to-the fellow-conservative-Mormons-and-not-ruffle-their-polygamous-feathers."

If our Republican forefathers had not tackled both "twin relics"...
...I don't believe slavery would have been addressed in the late 1850s into the 1860s --
--And I don't believe Republican leaders in Congress would have been able to defend one-man, one-woman marriage via numerous acts of legislation and law enforcement in the West!

Batter, the Gospel and the truth of God's Word is integral to His saving purposes -- both of us as a nation -- and as individuals bound or not bound for heaven.

We dare not take aim vs. the reason why Jesus came...because then we are taking on God, Himself!

Caucus threads give religious people who are generally good conservatives a reason not to just abandon FR to the anti firestorm...

Come now, DU. Can we compete w/the $millions Lds, Inc. devotes to calling us "apostates" & "corrupt" & worst names in its translations of books & curricula & mass media & Web sites into hundreds of languages?

If we are "anti-Mormon," then Mormons are anti-Christian! You are, plain & simple, against the Christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't let SLC get away with bashing us as "apostates," "whores of Babylon," "corrupt," "the church of the devil" and the like!

Worse, your personal wallet has been paying for it for years!

Were you not "anti-Christian," then we would see you "distance" yourself more than just "I don't go to Web sites discussing Christian theology." We would actually see you critique the sources of that name-calling.

But we don't -- from YOU or from other Mormons. It's status quo; business-as-usual.

My point? Even though we CANNOT compete with the hundreds of $millions at the disposal of Lds, Inc. to label us how they will, does that mean that we conclude -- like you have -- that we will automatically abandon working with Mormons on various mutual causes?

(I.e. defending marriage; working on behalf of our youth in efforts like Boy Scouts; manning food pantries together, etc...Why is it that I -- more so than the average evangelical -- knows the hundreds of horrid things that Mormon leaders have called us...and yet I'm still willing to work on conservative causes with Mormons to a degree...and yet Mormons can't do the reverse? You & other Mormons keep claiming Lds can't stomach some critiques and continue working w/us? Why not? They can pay for their leaders to dish it out -- but they don't want return commentary?)

...when I see my religion, my flag or my wife disrespected, I feel it my duty to respond.

DU I'm not going to say that Mormonism isn't disparaged on FR; but I will say that a hefty chunk of it is simply regurgitated Mormon leader quotations coming right back atcha!

Yes, I know that's not a pretty sight. (It wasn't very pretty when it came out of those Mormon leaders' mouths the first time).

But what I don't understand, DU, is if Christians can put up w/the absolute filthy crap that Lds leaders have hurled at us for these past 180 years -- labeling us things not based in truth -- I don't understand how come Mormonism is withering under primarily a "revelation" of its own history and theology???

What exactly is so "anti" about seeing if Mormonism can stand up to its own history and theological consistency?

Let them have their beliefs, I have mine.

DU, I assume you are (and/or have been) a tithing Mormon. Having said that, what I mean is -- it's simply too late for you to make this statement with full truth-bearing disclosure.

Your contributions have already trickled into the coffers of publishing curricula & books & missionary training that calls us "apostates" -- and worse. The fact is, your leaders' belief system hasn't allowed us to have our "own belief" system minus your leaders' commentary.

We can't simply be -- to use the denominational names you used -- Baptist, Calvinistic, Lutheran and Catholic; no, your leaders have had to tinge our church as being the "church of the devil" by applying 1 Nephi 14:9-10 to us!

Just because you have personally delegated this commentary to your leaders, and funded their efforts in the process, doesn't alleviate you of your role in all of this!

I assume you did your two-year mission. How many times did you use the phrase (or a similar one to it), "universal apostasy and restoration?"

Was PD out of line for posting this? I don't know, but it could have been handled better.

PD can post what he wants to. The issue here is where he posted it -- what boundaries he attached to it.

Actually, any freeper could repost any article posted as a Caucus thread, making it an open thread, where everybody could post whatever they wanted.

Charles, haven't you ever heard a liberal MSM report that just made you inwardly chaff -- causing you to think, "Boy, if I could only have 2 minutes' rebuttal time with that reporter right now, we'd see if their version of truth held up to scrutiny!"

Now I suppose, Charles, if you had connections -- say to a Fox reporter -- I suppose the next time a liberal reporter offered up such provocative material, you could always conclude, "Ah, who needs a rebuttal? I can just call my Fox contact and they'll cover that angle in another piece."

Charles, falsehood left unchallenged is indeed an affront to truth.

So it’s funny to see people claiming that the caucus designation was somehow an affront to those NOT in the caucus, when they seem much more like a crutch for caucus members who don’t feel like defending their beliefs.

Well, indeed it is a "crutch." And yet what if...
(1) A fundamentalist Mormon came on FR and began defining TRUE Mormonism as embracing D&C 132 -- the everlasting covenant of celestial polygamous marriage...
(2) They plastered a "caucus" boundary on the thread, so that no Mormon could counter the argument that to be a "true" Mormon you had to embrace polygamy.

Don't you think a Mormon would have a right to challenge that Mormonism = polygamy? Should a "caucus" status be considered so "sacro-sanct" that we ignore the provocations some content illicits? (I don't think so)

My main point with polygamy is and always has been that: Our laws, and our culture do not dictate God's law. God's law should dictate our morals and in large part our laws.

Sorry...but you cannot point to any part of the Bible where God's "law" reads: "Thou shalt practice polygamy."

In fact, God's admonitions in Deut. 17:17 and Lev. 18:18 are to the opposite -- that polygamy would draw away men's hearts from God -- which is EXACTLY what happened to Solomon (1 Kings 11).

God told Hosea to marry a prostitute who continued to carry on that as a "cottage industry." (Does that make prostitution as your wife's "job" "Biblical," DU?) [My previous post]
No, it does not, she was still condemned in the scriptures. [DU}

Wow! Your brain wires can't possibly be that disconnected, can they? Didn't you -- moments after you wrote the above statement -- later say in the same response to me: Logic 101: If God ever approved of Polygamy, and God does not change then God approves of polygamy now. It's simple logic really.

Well, based upon what you said here -- and this time with a contextual application re: Hosea's relationship w/Gomer -- does your "Simple Logic 101" apply there?

Look @ that relationship only from Hosea's angle (not Gomer's). Did God "approve" that relationship, DU?

Of course He did! He told Hosea to marry her!

Thereby, exercising your "Simple Logic 101 extended: "If God ever approved of a MAN marrying a prostitute who carried on her trade post-marriage, and God does not change then God approves of men marrying practicing prostitutes now. It's simple logic really." [DU's "Simple Logic Maxim 101a]

DU, if you can't be consistent here, just give it up.

When David murdered Uriah, Nathan the prophet came to him and said: 2 Samual 12:7-8...8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom...So, God told David that he gave him all his wives, and would have given him more if that was too little. I believe this covers your "Go get another wife".

DU, if you know how to read the Bible in context then you know 2 Sam. 16:21-22 references these SAME EXACT women as "concubines" -- otherwise know as slave-women that David the King inherited from Saul (to be crass, they "came with the furniture").

21 Ahithophel answered, “Sleep with your father’s concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself obnoxious to your father, and the hands of everyone with you will be more resolute.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel."

The underlying Hebrew word for "wives" in 2 Sam. 8 was just as frequently used for "women." Were they David's women? Yes, of course. They were his slaves inherited as part of the kingdom. They were his concubines. Did he sleep with them as a man would sleep with his wife? Probably. (Not sure).

But, I guess to be consistent, we'll apply DU's "Simple Logic 101" here, too: "If God ever approved of owning slave girls that could be used sexually -- concubines, and God does not change then God approves of owning slave girls that could be used sexually -- concubines -- now." [DU's "Simple Logic Maxim 101b"]

ALL: Do you see where DU's "simple logic" gets him in trouble?...He interprets God's allowance of imperfect relationships -- as if God sanctioned them!

And once he commits to this premise re: polygamy, then he MUST be consistent & apply it in parallel form to God's order of Hosea to marry a practicing prostitute -- and to David's inheritance of concubines in his kingdom.

What's worse is that DU -- the Mormon apologist -- then "fast forwards" polygamy as applicable today because he doesn't believe the God-who-(he thinks) sanctions polygamy doesn't change. Well, now DU is "stuck." Because, having assumed that posture publicly, on what grounds does the God who thinks it was OK for Hosea to marry a practicing prostitute change? On what what grounds does the God who thinks it was OK for David to inherit sexual concubines change?

Before you know it, DU the Mormon apologist is 100% embracing contemporary slave-girl sexual trafficking and men who marry practicing prostitutes! (Oh, don't worry, God still condemns the prostitute...but apparently NOT the husband-prostitute wife marriage arrangement!)

All I can say on the sexual trafficking is hey, DU, at least you're being consistent in applying Joseph Smith 134:12 to your contemporary ethics (otherwise known as D&C 134:12 -- a verse where Smith sanctioned slavery!)

Use caps and bold all day long but it will not change the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is Christ’s true Church restored to the earth.

(Do I detect your back-to-the-wall rote testimony that's been propaganda-like, reinforced in your testimony meetings, kicking in?)

Think about all those rote "testimonies" you've heard all those years in those meetings.

Think about the forced expectations & awkward moments involved in many of those meetings.

Oh sure, many genuine expressions of "thanksgiving" to God were shared there. Those were from the heart.

But you seemed to forgot one little phrase in this testimony you just offered...here, I'll quote it back to you, and then show you what you left out:

...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is Christ’s true Church restored to the earth.

What did you neglect to add here?

Why, you failed to "D&C 1:30"-ize it for us mere non-Mormon Gentile peons.

Here, allow me to "fix it" for you, D&C 1:30 style: "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is Christ's ONLY true and living Church restored to the earth." [ALL: The special highlighted portion conforms to Mormon "scripture" -- as covered in D&C 1:30]

I can't say you intentionally left out Joseph Smith's scripted descript of the Mormon Church.

But I do know that Mormons pleading for public "tolerance" don't like to be seen as...
...intolerant...
...exclusive...
...monopoly-manipulating...
...elitist...
...etc....
...and will therefore tend to "tuck away" what they deem as "meat" -- and not offer it up to tender sucklings -- offering only "milk" instead.

So, hey...thanks for your milk bottle testimonial version! (How "sensitive" of you to not publicly tell us what your wallet pays for in "scripture" translations into hundreds of languages, Lds.org & other web sites, byu-tv & other multi-media sources, curricula from church to institutes to seminaries, etc, & other publications...we feel so "honored" you have "hidden" that you Mormons deem us as the false and dead church from our sight so that we can see how "tolerant" you are)

Nice beak and receding chin. And hairline, as well. He really was a homely twerp. No wonder that he overcompensated and created his own religion.

Joseph Smith was a poorly educated man. Most historians agree that he had completed the third grade - although this claim is made without the benefit of supporting school records.

Joseph almost lost a leg due to infection when he was an eight year boy. He was forced to stay indoors and hobble around on a crutch for at least two years walked thereafter with a noticeable limp.

Joseph had no vocational training such as carpentry, black smithing, gun smithing, harness mending or saddle making.

Joseph came from a large family - his parents, Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith, had 11 children. Joseph's family was impoverished - Smith Sr. was a failure at every endeavor he tried and could not hold a steady job.

In other words, Joseph was an uneducated person who was unable to perform manual labor, could not work as a tradesman, and could not live on an inheritance.

L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, once said that he founded his cult because it was the quickest and easiest way he could think of to make a lot of money. In her famous biography of Joseph Smith, the noted historian Fawn Brodie convincingly argued the same applied to Joseph. He founded Mormonism because he couldn't think of a better way to make money.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.