LDS - Page 37

tsig · 8th January 2013, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Empress

14 years old? Or was he 16 years old, as in the earliest known account that JS dictated about his first vision? "In the 16th year of my age, the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord." It was several years later that the First Vision changed from "the Lord", to "personages" and finally the official version given by the church today. You'd think he'd remember something kind of important like that.

And despite JS getting these one-on-one visits from above, oddly his mother and brothers Hyrum and Samuel, still continued to attend the local Presbyterian Church until their names were stricken from the records in 1830 for having been absent from meetings for the last year and a half. So for approx five years after this wondrous occurrence, his own family seems to have been completely uninterested in the fact.

Of course, at that time "all the ordinances" essentially included things like laying on of hands, anointing with oil, etc. The sort of things many churches engage in, and that you read about in the Bible. Strangely, it's only after JS became a Mason that the rest of the ordinances show up--curiously akin to the same Masonic rituals that he'd just learned. Though no doubt, that's just another coincidence.

I believe the official story is that the Masons corrupted the original ordinances and JS restored them to their original purity.

Humm,,,sounds familiar.

tsig · 8th January 2013, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Not worthy? No point in even trying, then. Your god has no need or interest in me.

Looks like unless you're a glass looking, money digging con man god just isn't interested in you.

Slowvehicle · 8th January 2013, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by foster zygote

ah yes, "love me or i'll destroy you". If your god is truly a god, then it will know what is required to make itself known to me. The fact that it seems unable to reveal to me anything much different from every other "god" presented by humanity supports the conclusion that it is just as imaginary as any other "god". It least i can rely on some future mormon adding me to the list of those to be baptized posthumously, eh?

^^this^^

tsig · 8th January 2013, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Astreja,
Despite the fact that you are a Spiritual child of "a God", our Heavenly Father, you and most mortals are most probably not worthy of "a one-on-one physical encounter with a god." You are in no position to demand a personal manifestation.

With this Universe and a myriad of Spirit offspring, it is doubtful our Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ will ever visit you personally while in mortality. It is for your benefit, not His, that you accept His love and sacrifice.

However, as I have posted previously, the Spirit of Jesus and the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is available to guide you to the truth through our Lord's delegated representatives. If you choose to reject this guidance and the Scriptures revealed through His messengers, and will not listen to His Prophets, including Thomas S. Monson who is the Lord's Living Prophet on the earth today... then it is tough luck

and you take the consequences of your choices.

Not worthy? What did JS do that made him worthy?

Slowvehicle · 8th January 2013, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Then you have not read my posts

...I did read the one where you said you were leaving...

tsig · 8th January 2013, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

...I did read the one where you said you were leaving...

Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics.

Skeptical Greg · 8th January 2013, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

...
With this Universe and a myriad of Spirit offspring, it is doubtful our Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ will ever visit you personally while in mortality. It is for your benefit, not His, that you accept His love and sacrifice.

.....

Can you explain this love and sacrifice?

Personally, not someone else' words ..

Astreja · 8th January 2013, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Despite the fact that you are a Spiritual child of "a God"...

Not yet demonstrated. I see no credible empirical evidence for "spirit" or for your god.

Quote:

you and most mortals are most probably not worthy of "a one-on-one physical encounter with a god." You are in no position to demand a personal manifestation.

Janadele, it is not for you to decide whether I am or am not "worthy," or if I am or am not in a position to make such a demand. I reiterate that I will accept nothing short of a personal physical encounter. No scriptures. No prophets. No middlemen of any sort.

And if I am not worthy of an encounter with your purported god, then said god is not worthy of Me. I want nothing whatsoever to do with a being that cannot be bothered to provide Me with the necessary information to avoid future unpleasantness.

You see, if it truly was a god, and not just a figment of someone's pious imagination, it would know very well why I reject prophets and scriptures. Over the years I've seen all too many pious frauds and people purporting to speak in the name of various deities, but none of them seem to reflect -- In word or deed -- anything that I could actually love or worship. Frankly, I've had vastly more fulfilling "spiritual" experiences with characters from fantasy novels.

Quote:

It is for your benefit, not His, that you accept His love and sacrifice.

I unconditionally reject all sacrifices on My behalf. No one dies in My place.

Quote:

However, as I have posted previously, the Spirit of Jesus and the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is available to guide you to the truth through our Lord's delegated representatives. If you choose to reject this guidance and the Scriptures revealed through His messengers, and will not listen to His Prophets, including Thomas S. Monson who is the Lord's Living Prophet on the earth today...

How, um, very convenient that a representative of *your* particular church happens to be one of the lucky "worthy" ones. I smell a rat.

And I reject your alleged "prophets." To Me, they are nothing more than ordinary mortals who are pretending to speak for gods.

Quote:

...then it is tough luck

and you take the consequences of your choices.

Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad baculum. Your use of a grinning smiley is also noted. Janadele, joking about such "tough luck" says volumes about your character. Suffice to say that I never want to end up like you.

I accept the consequences of My decision. Bring it.

skyrider44 · 8th January 2013, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by asydhouse

You are so busted, Skyrider!

I wouldn't care what you choose to believe if you were simply kind, decent people. But you are callous, smug self-righteous evangelists spreading lies and confusion.

If one cannot argue on the merits, he/she predictably resorts to personal attacks, as you ably demonstrate here. That's unfortunate.

Quote:

: If you had any personal honour. . . .

This is a particularly egregious personal attack; I should think it would be beneath you.

Quote:

: . . .stand up like a man of heart, search your soul and commit to truth and honest compassionate humility. Retire to a monastery or a log cabin and spend your days praying and doing chores, if you must be a religious drone. Or better yet, keep your mouth shut and help in a homeless shelter, or something.

Do you have anything of substance to say?

Janadele · 8th January 2013, 08:32 AM

Cainkane1 · 8th January 2013, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

HUh? Why are you smiling? Like other LDS and other religious people you have lost the argument. Why are you smiling?

Shalamar · 8th January 2013, 08:40 AM

Well, Janadele, and Skyrider certainly show me the true face of Mormonism.

The Petty, holier-than-thou side. The 'We're better than you, because we believe'.

You're smug, and self-assured that you're so much better than us.

Guess what? You aren't. You believe it's true only because you believe. It's no different than anyone else from any other religion. Everyone says that THEIR faith is the one true faith, and if you don't follow THEIR faith, you will be punished for all eternity.

Even sadder, when people ask questions about discrepancies, you turn a blind eye to them. You refuse to acknowledge them at all, because you worry they just might be true, so instead you call them lies of Lucifer.

Your smug smilies show that you really aren't serious about discussion, but then, you ever have been. You want people to share the same faith you have, and you cannot understand when people.. are critical, and ask questions.

It's a hollow empty faith you have. But hey, you're better than us. Smarter, superious, because you believe! Go on believing. I'll learn more about your church from those who are willing to question it than anything you can possibly say.

Shalamar · 8th January 2013, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

HUh? Why are you smiling? Like other LDS and other religious people you have lost the argument. Why are you smiling?

Self-superiority.

DragonLady · 8th January 2013, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Janadele, do you know the difference between right and wrong?

The idea that your personal God would send millions or billions of people to death and eternal suffering is reprehensible and wrong.

So why are you smiling about it?

I had the impression you were a good person; but just deluded. These big smilies at the most inappropriate times lead me to rethink that position.

Do you really believe the people of JREF deserve to suffer -in any way- for failing to disregard the flesh-n-blood reality of their lives and the physical evidence of this world in favor of a bunch of words in a book that no one can be sure ever existed?

If you do, shame on you.

Foster Zygote · 8th January 2013, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

If one cannot argue on the merits...

Then perhaps you could actually address my post?

Janadele · 8th January 2013, 09:09 AM

There are many allegations refering to "suffering" and "torture" ... Where in any of my posts has this concept been put forward?

tsig · 8th January 2013, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

If one cannot argue on the merits, he/she predictably resorts to personal attacks, as you ably demonstrate here. That's unfortunate.

This is a particularly egregious personal attack; I should think it would be beneath you.

Do you have anything of substance to say?

Originally Posted by Janadele

The hilited looks to me like an egregious personal attack.

ETA: my hiliting

Jack by the hedge · 8th January 2013, 09:21 AM

I just used the Search Thread button (at the upper right of the page) and searched for 'torture'.

It seems it was only used here:

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's immoral even when god does it.

Noah's Flood.
First born of Egypt.
Amalekite children.
Moabite children.
David's child with Bathsheba.

It's immoral to torture children with drowning in front of their mothers. It's inhumane to kill innocent children that have done nothing wrong.

poblob14 · 8th January 2013, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

There are many allegations refering to "suffering" and "torture" ... Where in any of my posts has this concept been put forward?

I suspect the reference is to this:

Originally Posted by Janadele

Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality.

Parenthetically, I think that Ben Franklin would have found it hilarious to be baptized postumously as a Mormon. John Wesley, on the other hand, would have been pissed.

Lukraak_Sisser · 8th January 2013, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

The Lord has given all the evidence he needs to give. Every opportunity has been given to mankind to be able to progress through the eternities. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality.

I could bother to look up the other posts in a similar vein, but I'm hoping your memory is better than that.

tsig · 8th January 2013, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by poblob14

I suspect the reference is to this:Parenthetically, I think that Ben Franklin would have found it hilarious to be baptized postumously as a Mormon. John Wesley, on the other hand, would have been pissed.

I'd think the apostles would be mighty surprised to find that even though they'd seen JC in the flesh they now had to believe in JS to be saved.

RandFan · 8th January 2013, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Despite the fact that you are a Spiritual child of "a God", our Heavenly Father, you and most mortals are most probably not worthy of "a one-on-one physical encounter with a god." You are in no position to demand a personal manifestation.

Actually we all are. We've been promised.

Originally Posted by James 1:5

If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given to him.

Cleon · 8th January 2013, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

If one cannot argue on the merits, he/she predictably resorts to personal attacks

Kinda like responding to criticisms of the BoM with accusations of "anti-Mormonism."

dafydd · 8th January 2013, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Kinda like responding to criticisms of the BoM with accusations of "anti-Mormonism."

It's easier than facing up to the facts.

Craig4 · 8th January 2013, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

Wiki cites from anti-Mormon propaganda and does not usually present the true facts regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of the information found at Wikipedia regarding the LDS Church is false and misleading.

You mean sort of like telling people this tribe of Israelites brought barley to the New World when they really didn't is misleading?

Craig4 · 8th January 2013, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

The Lord has given all the evidence he needs to give. Every opportunity has been given to mankind to be able to progress through the eternities. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality.

Why did an omnipotent god ensure that anyone with an ounce of credulity or intellectual honesty would have to reject the BoM? If your god wanted people to believe the book surely he/she/it would not have put in so many obvious fabrications. Why the obvious made up story about the tribe of Israel? Why get the whole agriculture and technology thing so hopelessly wrong? Does your go only want to gullible? It's odd behavior to send a message that's demonstrably wrong.

Now I know you're going to say there are no errors in the BoM. Just understand that your beliefs have no impact on the existence of the errors.

RandFan · 8th January 2013, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Kinda like responding to criticisms of the BoM with accusations of "anti-Mormonism."

It soothes the cognitive dissonance. The Mormon Church, like many if not most, have a number of cognitive techniques to keep members from leaving. One of these is to not allow oneself to get to deep below the superficial propaganda.

The Church is true.
Anything that conflicts with #1 is wrong.
If you are asked a difficult question remember #1.

Skeptical Greg · 8th January 2013, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Craig4

You mean sort of like telling people this tribe of Israelites brought barley to the New World when they really didn't is misleading?

Are you saying except for the ' bringing barley ' part, you really wouldn't have a problem with Israelites migrating to the Americas back whenever?

Really people, the term ' barley ' shouldn't be the meat here..

zooterkin · 8th January 2013, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Are you saying except for the ' bringing barley ' part, you really wouldn't have a problem with Israelites migrating to the Americas back whenever?

Really people, the term ' barley ' shouldn't be the meat here..

Indeed. I wonder if Joseph Smith ever encountered British Israelism?

A bit of googling shows it is a distinct possibility, and the idea was apparently well known in the church.

Quote:

British Israelism is alive and well among British Mormons. It’s not something you’d hear very often from the pulpit, but when asked to explain the tremendous missionary success of mid-19th century in Britain, and Britain’s prominence on the world stage, I think many British Mormons would use some form of British Israelism.

Pup · 8th January 2013, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Indeed. I wonder if Joseph Smith ever encountered British Israelism?

A bit of googling shows it is a distinct possibility, and the idea was apparently well known in the church.

For reference, here's a link again to this handy summary of examples of non-Mormon late-18th/early-19th century beliefs that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes, which I originally posted in the middle part of this post. It wasn't unique to Smith at the time, but has survived on in the LDS religion more than anyplace else.

I hadn't heard of British Israelism before. Interesting how the same concept was used.

RandFan · 8th January 2013, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Indeed. I wonder if Joseph Smith ever encountered British Israelism?

I never heard of it. Interesting.

There is also the apocryphal story that Christ visited the British Isles (in The BofM Christ visits America). See And did those feet in ancient time which was put to music, Jerusalem.

zooterkin · 8th January 2013, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I never heard of it. Interesting.

There is also the apocryphal story that Christ visited the British Isles (in The BofM Christ visits America). See And did those feet in ancient time which was put to music, Jerusalem.

Yes, I was going to mention that too, as I've always assumed that was connected to the British Israelites, but reading around I realised it's a different legend entirely.

jsfisher · 8th January 2013, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Janadele

I have zero interest in responding to time wasting imbecile questions or comments which have no relevance to our eternal progression or to the actual teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thank you for this post. Simply repeating recycled dogma or links to Mormon propaganda sites with little or no comment isn't useful. It is vacuous and doesn't advance a meaningful discussion. This post, on the other hand, gives us insight into what you really believe and how those beliefs impact you.

Thanks for this candid glimpse of your true self.

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Well, Janadele, and Skyrider certainly show me the true face of Mormonism.

No, I would not conclude that.

Shalamar · 8th January 2013, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Thank you for this post. Simply repeating recycled dogma or links to Mormon propaganda sites with little or no comment isn't useful. It is vacuous and doesn't advance a meaningful discussion. This post, on the other hand, gives us insight into what you really believe and how those beliefs impact you.

Thanks for this candid glimpse of your true self.

No, I would not conclude that.

Perhaps I was hasty. However, it is rather revealing into these two ho.. refuse discussion.

The Norseman · 8th January 2013, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics.

One of the rare moments when I think a statement is sig-worthy. May I?

tsig · 8th January 2013, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

One of the rare moments when I think a statement is sig-worthy. May I?

Sure.

jsfisher · 8th January 2013, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by skyrider44

You make a reckless, unsupportable charge--one that has been dear to the hearts of critics for generations. I will deal with it in a separate post.

The public record in the matter indicates otherwise. The charge is neither reckless nor unsupportable. It is a matter of documented fact.

Quote:

The folly of what you state in the remainder of this post (and in previous ones) is readily exposed and dispatched, as follows:

1. You believe that the terminal sentence in the introduction (original version) refers exclusively to the Book of Ether, which consists of circa 30 pages. By your lights only that book is susceptible to error, and the 487 pages encompassed by the first paragraph are not. That makes no sense, yet it's your position.

That would be a straw man, and that is certainly not my position. The sentence does not refer to the translation at all.

Quote:

2. You fail to understand that the purpose of an introduction is to introduce readers to the entire contents of a book, or at a minimum to give them an overview of it. But the introduction you endorse--to reiterate-- addresses about 30 pages and ignores 487 pages.

Repeating your bit of fiction does not improve its truth.

Quote:

3. You do not realize that "fault" in the original introduction functions as a collective noun, thus it is applicable not only to both paragraphs but to the Book of Mormon in its entirety.

Didn't I mention the word was used as a collective noun, equivalent to usage of the word, sin, as in, "And if there be sin..."?

Quote:

4. You haven't examined the headnotes at the beginning of each chapter in the BoM. Do you see any paragraphing in them? What do you see instead? You see em dashes, even though the subject matter changes (sometimes dramatically).

The em-dashes in question were not in the original. It matters not at all what you've found in later editions.

Quote:

5. You apparently believe--with a league of critics--that circa 3,000 changes have been made in the BoM text. What you don't seem to understand is that those changes (whatever the number) deal almost exclusively with punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, which fall into the very issue we have been discussing.

You presume too much, and it is an irrelevant distraction to this discussion.

Quote:

6. Apparently, you do not accept amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If you did, you would understand that while Article 8 makes no reference to errors in the BoM, Joseph Smith admitted that the book was not pristine--on at least two occasions. In other words, he clarified/amended Article 8.

Boy, are you reaching with that one. You bring up amendments to the Constitution of the United States? Seriously? As far as the eighth Article of Faith, you'd think if the good Church leadership were so willing to correct the Book of Mormon, then they'd be just as willing to correct the Articles.

Quote:

In short, your position isn't credible. The concluding sentence refers to the Book of Mormon in its entirety, and the notion that it refers only to the people of Jared is ludicrous.

So you say. When your argument has substance, please let me know. Meanwhile, the Articles of Faith remain in conflict with your position. Your sole attempt to reconcile the two is to claim Joseph Smith amended the Articles of Faith by not changing them.

jsfisher · 8th January 2013, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Perhaps I was hasty. However, it is rather revealing into these two ho.. refuse discussion.

Hasty may not be the right adjective. I had similar thoughts, too, so it is a very easy generalization to make. It also helps emphasize the point that they are not acting as good ambassadors of the faith they so cherish. Still, we cannot judge everyone of a particular religion by the antics of just two individuals.

Shalamar · 8th January 2013, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Hasty may not be the right adjective. I had similar thoughts, too, so it is a very easy generalization to make. It also helps emphasize the point that they are not acting as good ambassadors of the faith they so cherish. Still, we cannot judge everyone of a particular religion by the antics of just two individuals.

I find the Missionaries when they come around to be polite. They always ask if there's anything they could do for me. Alas, they were never around when I was painting the house.

Cainkane1 · 8th January 2013, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

I find the Missionaries when they come around to be polite. They always ask if there's anything they could do for me. Alas, they were never around when I was painting the house.

I don't get Mormons anymore. I get Jehovah Witnesses but Mormons quit visiting years ago.

8th January 2013, 07:35 AM	#1443
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,194	Originally Posted by foster zygote ah yes, "love me or i'll destroy you". If your god is truly a god, then it will know what is required to make itself known to me. The fact that it seems unable to reveal to me anything much different from every other "god" presented by humanity supports the conclusion that it is just as imaginary as any other "god". It least i can rely on some future mormon adding me to the list of those to be baptized posthumously, eh? ^^this^^
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar "That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

8th January 2013, 07:38 AM	#1445
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,194	Originally Posted by Janadele Then you have not read my posts ...I did read the one where you said you were leaving...
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar "That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

8th January 2013, 07:57 AM	#1447
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by Janadele ... With this Universe and a myriad of Spirit offspring, it is doubtful our Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ will ever visit you personally while in mortality. It is for your benefit, not His, that you accept His love and sacrifice. ..... Can you explain this love and sacrifice? Personally, not someone else' words ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

8th January 2013, 08:28 AM	#1449
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by asydhouse You are so busted, Skyrider! I wouldn't care what you choose to believe if you were simply kind, decent people. But you are callous, smug self-righteous evangelists spreading lies and confusion. If one cannot argue on the merits, he/she predictably resorts to personal attacks, as you ably demonstrate here. That's unfortunate. Quote: : If you had any personal honour. . . . This is a particularly egregious personal attack; I should think it would be beneath you. Quote: : . . .stand up like a man of heart, search your soul and commit to truth and honest compassionate humility. Retire to a monastery or a log cabin and spend your days praying and doing chores, if you must be a religious drone. Or better yet, keep your mouth shut and help in a homeless shelter, or something. Do you have anything of substance to say?
skyrider44 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 245

8th January 2013, 08:32 AM	#1450
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,736
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

8th January 2013, 07:25 AM	#1441
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,784	Originally Posted by Empress 14 years old? Or was he 16 years old, as in the earliest known account that JS dictated about his first vision? "In the 16th year of my age, the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord." It was several years later that the First Vision changed from "the Lord", to "personages" and finally the official version given by the church today. You'd think he'd remember something kind of important like that. And despite JS getting these one-on-one visits from above, oddly his mother and brothers Hyrum and Samuel, still continued to attend the local Presbyterian Church until their names were stricken from the records in 1830 for having been absent from meetings for the last year and a half. So for approx five years after this wondrous occurrence, his own family seems to have been completely uninterested in the fact. Of course, at that time "all the ordinances" essentially included things like laying on of hands, anointing with oil, etc. The sort of things many churches engage in, and that you read about in the Bible. Strangely, it's only after JS became a Mason that the rest of the ordinances show up--curiously akin to the same Masonic rituals that he'd just learned. Though no doubt, that's just another coincidence. I believe the official story is that the Masons corrupted the original ordinances and JS restored them to their original purity. Humm,,,sounds familiar.

8th January 2013, 07:33 AM	#1442
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,784	Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey Not worthy? No point in even trying, then. Your god has no need or interest in me. Looks like unless you're a glass looking, money digging con man god just isn't interested in you.

8th January 2013, 07:35 AM	#1444
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,784	Originally Posted by Janadele Astreja, Despite the fact that you are a Spiritual child of "a God", our Heavenly Father, you and most mortals are most probably not worthy of "a one-on-one physical encounter with a god." You are in no position to demand a personal manifestation. With this Universe and a myriad of Spirit offspring, it is doubtful our Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ will ever visit you personally while in mortality. It is for your benefit, not His, that you accept His love and sacrifice. However, as I have posted previously, the Spirit of Jesus and the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is available to guide you to the truth through our Lord's delegated representatives. If you choose to reject this guidance and the Scriptures revealed through His messengers, and will not listen to His Prophets, including Thomas S. Monson who is the Lord's Living Prophet on the earth today... then it is tough luck and you take the consequences of your choices. Not worthy? What did JS do that made him worthy?

8th January 2013, 07:48 AM	#1446
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,784	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle ...I did read the one where you said you were leaving... Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics.

8th January 2013, 08:15 AM	#1448
Astreja Springy Goddess Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 973	Originally Posted by Janadele Despite the fact that you are a Spiritual child of "a God"... Not yet demonstrated. I see no credible empirical evidence for "spirit" or for your god. Quote: you and most mortals are most probably not worthy of "a one-on-one physical encounter with a god." You are in no position to demand a personal manifestation. Janadele, it is not for you to decide whether I am or am not "worthy," or if I am or am not in a position to make such a demand. I reiterate that I will accept nothing short of a personal physical encounter. No scriptures. No prophets. No middlemen of any sort. And if I am not worthy of an encounter with your purported god, then said god is not worthy of Me. I want nothing whatsoever to do with a being that cannot be bothered to provide Me with the necessary information to avoid future unpleasantness. You see, if it truly was a god, and not just a figment of someone's pious imagination, it would know very well why I reject prophets and scriptures. Over the years I've seen all too many pious frauds and people purporting to speak in the name of various deities, but none of them seem to reflect -- In word or deed -- anything that I could actually love or worship. Frankly, I've had vastly more fulfilling "spiritual" experiences with characters from fantasy novels. Quote: It is for your benefit, not His, that you accept His love and sacrifice. I unconditionally reject all sacrifices on My behalf. No one dies in My place. Quote: However, as I have posted previously, the Spirit of Jesus and the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit is available to guide you to the truth through our Lord's delegated representatives. If you choose to reject this guidance and the Scriptures revealed through His messengers, and will not listen to His Prophets, including Thomas S. Monson who is the Lord's Living Prophet on the earth today... How, um, very convenient that a representative of your particular church happens to be one of the lucky "worthy" ones. I smell a rat. And I reject your alleged "prophets." To Me, they are nothing more than ordinary mortals who are pretending to speak for gods. Quote: ...then it is tough luck and you take the consequences of your choices. Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad baculum. Your use of a grinning smiley is also noted. Janadele, joking about such "tough luck" says volumes about your character. Suffice to say that I never want to end up like you. I accept the consequences of My decision. Bring it.

8th January 2013, 08:38 AM	#1451
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	Originally Posted by Janadele HUh? Why are you smiling? Like other LDS and other religious people you have lost the argument. Why are you smiling?
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

8th January 2013, 08:40 AM	#1452
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,397	Well, Janadele, and Skyrider certainly show me the true face of Mormonism. The Petty, holier-than-thou side. The 'We're better than you, because we believe'. You're smug, and self-assured that you're so much better than us. Guess what? You aren't. You believe it's true only because you believe. It's no different than anyone else from any other religion. Everyone says that THEIR faith is the one true faith, and if you don't follow THEIR faith, you will be punished for all eternity. Even sadder, when people ask questions about discrepancies, you turn a blind eye to them. You refuse to acknowledge them at all, because you worry they just might be true, so instead you call them lies of Lucifer. Your smug smilies show that you really aren't serious about discussion, but then, you ever have been. You want people to share the same faith you have, and you cannot understand when people.. are critical, and ask questions. It's a hollow empty faith you have. But hey, you're better than us. Smarter, superious, because you believe! Go on believing. I'll learn more about your church from those who are willing to question it than anything you can possibly say.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

8th January 2013, 08:42 AM	#1453
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,397	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 HUh? Why are you smiling? Like other LDS and other religious people you have lost the argument. Why are you smiling? Self-superiority.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

8th January 2013, 08:43 AM	#1454
DragonLady Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Under the Starry, Starry Night Posts: 1,835	Originally Posted by Janadele Janadele, do you know the difference between right and wrong? The idea that your personal God would send millions or billions of people to death and eternal suffering is reprehensible and wrong. So why are you smiling about it? I had the impression you were a good person; but just deluded. These big smilies at the most inappropriate times lead me to rethink that position. Do you really believe the people of JREF deserve to suffer -in any way- for failing to disregard the flesh-n-blood reality of their lives and the physical evidence of this world in favor of a bunch of words in a book that no one can be sure ever existed? If you do, shame on you.
	__________________ It's NOT denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

8th January 2013, 08:48 AM	#1455
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,407	Originally Posted by skyrider44 If one cannot argue on the merits... Then perhaps you could actually address my post?
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

8th January 2013, 09:09 AM	#1456
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,736	There are many allegations refering to "suffering" and "torture" ... Where in any of my posts has this concept been put forward?
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

8th January 2013, 09:21 AM	#1457
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,784	Originally Posted by skyrider44 If one cannot argue on the merits, he/she predictably resorts to personal attacks, as you ably demonstrate here. That's unfortunate. This is a particularly egregious personal attack; I should think it would be beneath you. Do you have anything of substance to say? Originally Posted by Janadele The hilited looks to me like an egregious personal attack. ETA: my hiliting

8th January 2013, 09:21 AM	#1458
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,421	I just used the Search Thread button (at the upper right of the page) and searched for 'torture'. It seems it was only used here: Originally Posted by RandFan It's immoral even when god does it. Noah's Flood. First born of Egypt. Amalekite children. Moabite children. David's child with Bathsheba. It's immoral to torture children with drowning in front of their mothers. It's inhumane to kill innocent children that have done nothing wrong.

8th January 2013, 09:23 AM	#1459
poblob14 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 226	Originally Posted by Janadele There are many allegations refering to "suffering" and "torture" ... Where in any of my posts has this concept been put forward? I suspect the reference is to this: Originally Posted by Janadele Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality. Parenthetically, I think that Ben Franklin would have found it hilarious to be baptized postumously as a Mormon. John Wesley, on the other hand, would have been pissed.
poblob14 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 226

8th January 2013, 09:42 AM	#1460
Lukraak_Sisser Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,620	Originally Posted by Janadele The Lord has given all the evidence he needs to give. Every opportunity has been given to mankind to be able to progress through the eternities. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality. I could bother to look up the other posts in a similar vein, but I'm hoping your memory is better than that.

8th January 2013, 09:43 AM	#1461
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,784	Originally Posted by poblob14 I suspect the reference is to this:Parenthetically, I think that Ben Franklin would have found it hilarious to be baptized postumously as a Mormon. John Wesley, on the other hand, would have been pissed. I'd think the apostles would be mighty surprised to find that even though they'd seen JC in the flesh they now had to believe in JS to be saved.

8th January 2013, 09:47 AM	#1462
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,373	Originally Posted by Janadele Despite the fact that you are a Spiritual child of "a God", our Heavenly Father, you and most mortals are most probably not worthy of "a one-on-one physical encounter with a god." You are in no position to demand a personal manifestation. Actually we all are. We've been promised. Originally Posted by James 1:5 If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given to him.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

8th January 2013, 09:51 AM	#1463
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,535	Originally Posted by skyrider44 If one cannot argue on the merits, he/she predictably resorts to personal attacks Kinda like responding to criticisms of the BoM with accusations of "anti-Mormonism."
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

8th January 2013, 09:52 AM	#1464
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by Cleon Kinda like responding to criticisms of the BoM with accusations of "anti-Mormonism." It's easier than facing up to the facts.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

8th January 2013, 10:21 AM	#1465
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by Janadele Wiki cites from anti-Mormon propaganda and does not usually present the true facts regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of the information found at Wikipedia regarding the LDS Church is false and misleading. You mean sort of like telling people this tribe of Israelites brought barley to the New World when they really didn't is misleading?
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

8th January 2013, 10:32 AM	#1466
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by Janadele The Lord has given all the evidence he needs to give. Every opportunity has been given to mankind to be able to progress through the eternities. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality. Why did an omnipotent god ensure that anyone with an ounce of credulity or intellectual honesty would have to reject the BoM? If your god wanted people to believe the book surely he/she/it would not have put in so many obvious fabrications. Why the obvious made up story about the tribe of Israel? Why get the whole agriculture and technology thing so hopelessly wrong? Does your go only want to gullible? It's odd behavior to send a message that's demonstrably wrong. Now I know you're going to say there are no errors in the BoM. Just understand that your beliefs have no impact on the existence of the errors.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

8th January 2013, 10:48 AM	#1467
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,373	Originally Posted by Cleon Kinda like responding to criticisms of the BoM with accusations of "anti-Mormonism." It soothes the cognitive dissonance. The Mormon Church, like many if not most, have a number of cognitive techniques to keep members from leaving. One of these is to not allow oneself to get to deep below the superficial propaganda. The Church is true. Anything that conflicts with #1 is wrong. If you are asked a difficult question remember #1.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

8th January 2013, 12:27 PM	#1468
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by Craig4 You mean sort of like telling people this tribe of Israelites brought barley to the New World when they really didn't is misleading? Are you saying except for the ' bringing barley ' part, you really wouldn't have a problem with Israelites migrating to the Americas back whenever? Really people, the term ' barley ' shouldn't be the meat here..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

8th January 2013, 12:50 PM	#1469
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,600	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Are you saying except for the ' bringing barley ' part, you really wouldn't have a problem with Israelites migrating to the Americas back whenever? Really people, the term ' barley ' shouldn't be the meat here.. Indeed. I wonder if Joseph Smith ever encountered British Israelism? A bit of googling shows it is a distinct possibility, and the idea was apparently well known in the church. Quote: British Israelism is alive and well among British Mormons. It’s not something you’d hear very often from the pulpit, but when asked to explain the tremendous missionary success of mid-19th century in Britain, and Britain’s prominence on the world stage, I think many British Mormons would use some form of British Israelism.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

8th January 2013, 01:17 PM	#1470
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590	Originally Posted by zooterkin Indeed. I wonder if Joseph Smith ever encountered British Israelism? A bit of googling shows it is a distinct possibility, and the idea was apparently well known in the church. For reference, here's a link again to this handy summary of examples of non-Mormon late-18th/early-19th century beliefs that the American Indians were descendants of the lost tribes, which I originally posted in the middle part of this post. It wasn't unique to Smith at the time, but has survived on in the LDS religion more than anyplace else. I hadn't heard of British Israelism before. Interesting how the same concept was used.
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590

8th January 2013, 01:35 PM	#1471
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,373	Originally Posted by zooterkin Indeed. I wonder if Joseph Smith ever encountered British Israelism? I never heard of it. Interesting. There is also the apocryphal story that Christ visited the British Isles (in The BofM Christ visits America). See And did those feet in ancient time which was put to music, Jerusalem.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

8th January 2013, 01:45 PM	#1472
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,600	Originally Posted by RandFan I never heard of it. Interesting. There is also the apocryphal story that Christ visited the British Isles (in The BofM Christ visits America). See And did those feet in ancient time which was put to music, Jerusalem. Yes, I was going to mention that too, as I've always assumed that was connected to the British Israelites, but reading around I realised it's a different legend entirely.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

8th January 2013, 03:52 PM	#1473
jsfisher ETcorngods survivor Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 11,484	Originally Posted by Janadele I have zero interest in responding to time wasting imbecile questions or comments which have no relevance to our eternal progression or to the actual teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you for this post. Simply repeating recycled dogma or links to Mormon propaganda sites with little or no comment isn't useful. It is vacuous and doesn't advance a meaningful discussion. This post, on the other hand, gives us insight into what you really believe and how those beliefs impact you. Thanks for this candid glimpse of your true self. Originally Posted by Shalamar Well, Janadele, and Skyrider certainly show me the true face of Mormonism. No, I would not conclude that.
	__________________ As long as Comparison is sunk in the urine of one's mind, new glasses will not help. --Doronshadmi. *A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.* By the way, the Nominate button is to your ~~right~~ left, sort of..

8th January 2013, 04:00 PM	#1474
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,397	Originally Posted by jsfisher Thank you for this post. Simply repeating recycled dogma or links to Mormon propaganda sites with little or no comment isn't useful. It is vacuous and doesn't advance a meaningful discussion. This post, on the other hand, gives us insight into what you really believe and how those beliefs impact you. Thanks for this candid glimpse of your true self. No, I would not conclude that. Perhaps I was hasty. However, it is rather revealing into these two ho.. refuse discussion.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

8th January 2013, 04:22 PM	#1475
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,239	Originally Posted by tsig Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics. One of the rare moments when I think a statement is sig-worthy. May I?
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig