thews

How can factual history be "Anti"?

There is none so blind as those who will not see. "Anti" is a negative phrase to keep you from understanding the real history. Actual factual history is not "Anti" ...it's just factual data.

Yes I know... it clearly states "you three" in it. FAIRMORMON twists "the real" issue with it as to who it wqs addressed to, when in fact it's a moot point. The only condition Joseph Smith states is "not safe" is if Emma was there. No mention of bad guys, no mention of mobs, but the only condition it is not safe is if his wife Emma was there, and he stated he thought she wasn't going to be there, and he had a room "intirely to myself." Also note that Joseph Smith promised Sarah's parents eternal salvation, and that is was God will that they come, and it was now or never. Add into this Sarah's father had 38 wives of his own, and she had just turned 17. If you really want to read Fair's arguments with the 4 "distortions," they are all much ado about nothing, and do not address what Joseph Smnith actually said, but for some reason talk abotu what some other guy name Smith said. This is clearly an attemt to add Sarah Ann Whitney to his wives, and he did marry her. Again, the letter is addresed to all of them, it is addressed to Sarah's parents, so this is a fact and and a non issue. Question: Why was the only condition deemed "not safe" is when Joseph Smith 's wife wasn't there, and he stated he was "lonesome" and "Lonely"? You have to really look at this critically, because this is a letter from the Mormon prophet of God in Joseph Smith, the LDS church acknowledges it is in fact written by Joseph Smith, there are pictures of it on the web, and Joseph Smith instructs them to burn it, which Sarah didn't... it's a real insight into the mind of Joseph Smith. Read it and tell me what you honestly think.

In researching the facts, I don't need to read the Book of Mormon to acknowledge them, nor do I need to pray for guidance when I know facts are facts, and they are in fact true. In this case, if Swedenborg wrote about the three levels of heaven naming the "Celestial kingdom," I don't have to force the square peg into the round hole to make sense out of it. When I know Joseph Smith tried to sell the Book of Mormon for $3000, I also don't have to force that square peg into a round hole. When I know that Joseph Smith used his magic stone to cheat people out of their money by glass-looking before writing the Book of Mormon, I again don't have to rationalize it. If you take all of these things and look at the timeline, Joseph Smith really changed his theology when comparing 1830 to 1842. If you logically look at this progression after 1840, that's when polygamy/polyandry was introduced. Was this really of God, or of Joseph Smith? If you contend this is wrong (I do), then Joseph Smith, who supposedly knew God existed and was watching his every move, was doing some really bad things. Now logically, does it make sense that Joseph Smith knew God existed and the Book of Mormon was true, or is it more logical that Joseph Smith knew the Book of Mormon was false and was using the Mormon church to satisfy his own desires? (Note read the published letter to Sarah Ann Whitney with an ounce of critical thought and this is easy to see). Now add in that Joseph Smith was in the process of changing the bible when he died. Does this seem like God was pleased with his work, or frowned upon it? Does this seem pro or con when reading the bible regarding false prophets and their fate? Why would God allow this, and if you think he would, why didn't he have someone else finish it? Add it all up, and I contend it's why you didn't answer the question regarding Swedenborg's writings about the Celestial kingdom before 1800, and I would also contend that it's because it sides with the Book of Mormon not being true rather than being true. I think you're trying to change the subject to keep from answering the question about Swedenborg's writings and the vision of James G. Marsh.

Other than bad sarcasm I hardly see your point. Is the Elder's Journal not evidence enough? What do you make of Swedenborg's writings before 1800?

Godhead - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism This is from BYU... I'm not getting how it can be up to the person to changes what the LDS church teaches to fit what they believe, and still be LDS?

I tend to be much more logical. If Swedenborg wrote about it before Joseph Smith, it's logical that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon "borrowed" this concept from Swedenborg (for the record I don't believe Joseph Smith wrote it). In using your logic, Swedenborg is a prophet of God. I'm not buying that he "saw it somwhere." There always seems to be a square peg and a round hole to this kind of logic. You don't have to agree with me to see the point, but in this instance clearly the "restored" part of the afterlife was Swedenborg's first, through his vision. Just as the Visions of James G. Marsh saw two personages: Logic would dictate that Joseph Smith knew of this (Joseph Smith was the editor of the Elders Journal that published his obituary) and borrowed the boy's story. Don't these two things (Swedenborg and James G. Marsh) morph into Mormonism? One need only believe in these people's visions to accept them as divine. Using logic, I hardly see either as an accident, or coincidence, but rather further proof that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, but believed in magic and other people's visions. 2 cents...

I don't understand this. Are you saying the reward you'll get for being obidient is to attain a level of heaven where you'll get to be with your parents? OK, so I did hear it, I was baptized a Mormon and now I reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God. I am a Christian though, but I did get the opportunity... please explain what I can expect in the afterlife per LDS doctrine. The levels of glory were written in the late 1700's before Joseph Smith. Who should one read?

So you're saying Swedenborg had visions by divine intervention?

Fair enough. I appreciate your honest answer, but would urge you to read the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, as this is really cut and dry IMO. This is the problem I always had with Mormonism. How can something be right one day, and wrong the next? Why would the Lord change his mind when the bible clearly defines the word of God will never change? My opinion is that God is perfect... no mistakes and no changes required when the word is perfect. If it changes, or needs to change, then it's not perfect and not the word of God. Again, racism and polygamy/polyandry are fundamentally wrong and I really can't see how they would ever be "good" in God's eyes, but that's just me. You are being very fair to me and I understand how Mormons have been attacked for what they believe. I thank you for your honest input. Magic is magic, and glass-looking through seer stones was considered magic, as were a lot of things Joseph Smith believed in, including the Jupoter tallisman. This isn't hard to believe, since this was a part of the new world that migrated in the late 1700's, and it's what Joseph Smith's parents and grandparents believed in. Having visions wasn't that uncommon back then, and while my friend hired someone with a divining rod to find water on his land, some people still believe in things that could be defined as magic or not, but glass-looking is clearly magic IMO. If it can be proven historically as a fact than it is a fact. Some say Joseph Smith was not convicted of glass-looking, but just charged. In either case, the fact that he was hired to hunt for buried treasure before translating the golden plates, would mean that God and Joseph Smith were on the same page regarding seer stones. Jesus is God in man... that's what the bible teaches. If God were to come to earth, he could send an angel I guess, but if he came to earth then he would still be God. JMHO I guess, but I believe Jesus Christ was God and there is only one God. As I've said before, my beliefs are non-standard Christian, so I only speak for myself, as it is honestly what I've concluded.

I'm trying to understand you. How can one religion encompass so many things, including who God is? The point I was making is that the LDS church defines the official first vision as two personages. I really don't care what anyone wants to call themselves of what they choose to believe, as it's not a contest. But, in defining the LDS faith as monothestic, would be to deny what Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet of God, preached. This isn't semantics IMO, but while I admittedly don't believe what you believe, you do have a right to believe whatever it is you choose, but I just see this as a "one size fits all" definition to the core of what I assumed the LDS faith was. "Labels" are different than basic fundamental theology. Jews don't accept the New Testament, so God is defined by the Old Testament. Who God is should be the foundation for any religion isn't it? Are you telling me the LDS faith can be both monotheistic and henothestic at the same time? Isn't this a contradiction to what the Mormon prophet of God in Joseph Smith taught God was/is?

Just that you're again attacking me for stating a fact... I just thought you might be interested, but attack away if it makes you feel better.

Just an FYI ...in 1784 Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called “Heaven and Hell and its Wonders.” In it, Swedenborg claimed there were three different levels of heaven. The highest level was called “The Celestial Kingdom,” and the inhabitants of the three heaves corresponded to the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Then please tell me how my logic is flawed. How can the LDS church teach the first vision of Joseph Smith as two separate beings, and how LDS people can become Gods as anything but henothestic? Please tell me so I can understand, as this is just the foundation for the basic LDS theology. Fundamential Christian theology is monothestic (Jesus is God) and Mormon theology is henothestic (God the father and Jesus Christ are separate). Would you agree?

OK. then why do you get so mad when questions are asked about Mormon history and what Joseph Smith taught? Racisim is wrong, would you agree? "White and Delightsome" vs. the cursed "Dark and Loathsome" is racist. Polygamy/polyandry is also wrong. Marring girls 14 and 15 is wrong. This is just Mormon history, but when it's brought up you attack me for bringing it up. I see how hard it is for you to bucketize right vs. wrong, or how God's will was right at one time and wrong now, but if I, or others have questions I believe it's the questions that threaten you. I'm not saying anything someone believes is "wrong". What I am saying is I don't believe it, or rather I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and Mormonism is based on Joseph Smith being a prophet, and Joseph Smith believed in magic. Joseph Smith used his seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. While you may claim the seer stone isn't magic, would you conclude the peepstones used by other witnesses (specifically David Witmore) were magic? I rely on factual information to decide what I believe. If you believe something different, that's up to you... neither one of is wrong. You claim Mormonism is based on montheism, and I disagree. The first version of the Book of Mormon may have been, but this is the official version as published by LDS.orgJoseph Smith - The First Vision If you disagree with this, the I would contend you disagree with the LDS church's published account of what Joseph Smith, the LDS prophet of God said. Joseph Smith is the same person who claimed the first vision and translated the Book of Mormon. How can someone agree with one and not the other? Mormonism is clearly henotheism, which also includes men becomming Gods. Can you please explain how you believe Mormonism is monotheistic?