Are Polytheists Christians?

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 12 2004, 10:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 12 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Aug 8 2004, 11:30 AM

Im not arguing that Catholicism is perfect.  There are at least a dozen Pope's in the Church's history who were some very wicked men.  But Mormonism does tend, and you must agree, to promote the myth that Smith was an innocent, humble man.  Your faith's tendency to promote a saintly founder is absurd. 

I just noticed the above because of Shantress's post.

Whether or not the Church paints an accurate portrait of Joseph Smith is one thing. Your reasoning is another thing entirely. One one hand you lament the Church's elevated view of Joseph yet you follow a Church who not only has an elevated view of some of it's luminaries, but actually attributes to them a demi-god status through the beatification and canonization process - they are beyond mere mortals. And some of them were not the most savory of characters (Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer just came to mind, to say nothing (or just a little) of the Vicars of Christ whose crimes range from incest to murder to arson to theft to every conceivable horror the mind of man can dream up. I am not arguing that just because your Church was ruled over by some incredibly evil and debauched criminals that it lacks validity. I just can't understand how you use the virture of a church's leaders against one religion when the worst possible case belongs to your own religion.

Snow, did the followers of these unsavory Catholic characters stand behind them even after their crimes were known? I'm asking b/c I truly don't know.

That's a major problem in my opinion. LDS people have a difficult time saying that JS was wrong in marrying other mens' wives, a 14 year old, etc. He is still held up as a righteous man. I really don't want to disrespect anyone, but that is the biggest reason why I left the church. I just don't see how anyone could follow a man whose character would allow him to do such things. Then it's always the same canned responses of, "Some things aren't meant for us to understand", or "It will all be made clear to us someday."

[Ray]

As I said before, people tend to judge something based on the light they have by which to see it.

Do you realize that I've heard many accusations against Joseph Smith Jr. before too? Do you suppose I'm simply ignoring them? Well, guess what, I haven't. I've looked into many of them and have seen that most of them are based on a false presentation or understanding of the facts and evidence. There are some accusations based on issues where facts or evidence are lacking, but based on the facts and evidence I could find it's apparent to me that those accusations are most probably also based on a false presentation or understanding.

Just as there are people who believe he is a prophet, there are also people who believe he is a false prophet.

Just as there are people who say good things about him, there are also people who say evil things about him.

Each of us places ourselves among people on one side or the other, and only those who see the light can know the truth.

Btw, I testify as one who has recieved a testimony from God that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, and as God is my witness, that is the truth.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 13 2004, 08:57 AM

Do you realize that I've heard many accusations against Joseph Smith Jr. before too? Do you suppose I'm simply ignoring them? Well, guess what, I haven't. I've looked into many of them and have seen that most of them are based on a false presentation or understanding of the facts and evidence. There are some accusations based on issues where facts or evidence are lacking, but based on the facts and evidence I could find it's apparent to me that those accusations are most probably also based on a false presentation or understanding.

So all that he did is OK with you, Ray?

That's fine if that is the case, but I'd appreciate if you didn't imply that I don't understand it b/c I don't have some 'light' that you happen to have.

Perhaps I could say the same about you not having the 'light' that I DO possess. Not that I AM saying that, but perhaps I could...

[Kevin]

Originally posted by shanstress70+Aug 13 2004, 08:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Aug 13 2004, 08:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Aug 13 2004, 08:57 AM

Do you realize that I've heard many accusations against Joseph Smith Jr. before too? Do you suppose I'm simply ignoring them? Well, guess what, I haven't. I've looked into many of them and have seen that most of them are based on a false presentation or understanding of the facts and evidence. There are some accusations based on issues where facts or evidence are lacking, but based on the facts and evidence I could find it's apparent to me that those accusations are most probably also based on a false presentation or understanding.

So all that he did is OK with you, Ray?

That's fine if that is the case, but I'd appreciate if you didn't imply that I don't understand it b/c I don't have some 'light' that you happen to have.

Perhaps I could say the same about you not having the 'light' that I DO possess. Not that I AM saying that, but perhaps I could...

Shantress,

You know what is not ok with me? When people such as yourself come on this board and make accusations against Joseph Smith with absolutely ZERO support for such a claim. You've done so in this very thread. You have no evidence to support your claim or at least you've not presented such.

You talk about Joseph Smith Marrying other people's wives. Are you even aware that at that time it was common practice for people to be sealed to various leaders of the church? The sealing power had just been restored and so people felt it necessary to be sealed to those they felt would remain faithful. Did you even consider this or that that might account for Joseph being sealed othem men's wives? If you chose to leave the church based on the paucity of information you've presented so far then I wonder what depths you go to to make other important decisions.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Kevin+Aug 13 2004, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Aug 13 2004, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -shanstress70@Aug 13 2004, 08:52 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Aug 13 2004, 08:57 AM

Do you realize that I've heard many accusations against Joseph Smith Jr. before too? Do you suppose I'm simply ignoring them? Well, guess what, I haven't. I've looked into many of them and have seen that most of them are based on a false presentation or understanding of the facts and evidence. There are some accusations based on issues where facts or evidence are lacking, but based on the facts and evidence I could find it's apparent to me that those accusations are most probably also based on a false presentation or understanding.

So all that he did is OK with you, Ray?

That's fine if that is the case, but I'd appreciate if you didn't imply that I don't understand it b/c I don't have some 'light' that you happen to have.

Perhaps I could say the same about you not having the 'light' that I DO possess. Not that I AM saying that, but perhaps I could...

Shantress,

You know what is not ok with me? When people such as yourself come on this board and make accusations against Joseph Smith with absolutely ZERO support for such a claim. You've done so in this very thread. You have no evidence to support your claim or at least you've not presented such.

You talk about Joseph Smith Marrying other people's wives. Are you even aware that at that time it was common practice for people to be sealed to various leaders of the church? The sealing power had just been restored and so people felt it necessary to be sealed to those they felt would remain faithful. Did you even consider this or that that might account for Joseph being sealed othem men's wives? If you chose to leave the church based on the paucity of information you've presented so far then I wonder what depths you go to to make other important decisions.

Kevin,

That was not the only reason I left the church - I said it was the 'biggest' reason. It got me to looking more deeply into the church. Through months of careful reading, praying, and speaking with people (Mormons and non), I realized that I did not believe it was true.

And I am NOT ALLOWED to present this information on this board.

I wouldn't have even said anything if it weren't for Ray's snide remarks. You guys don't want non-LDS to say anything bad about your church, but you can sling the dirt all you want? I think not. If I'm not welcome I won't stay.

Anyway, are you saying that the husbands of the women JS married weren't faithful? Not from what I've read. Plus, what if they weren't? Was he just going to marry every woman with an unfaithful husband? And I'm sure he didn't have sex with any of them, huh? Can you 'present the evidence' that he did not?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Kevin+Aug 13 2004, 09:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Aug 13 2004, 09:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -shanstress70@Aug 13 2004, 08:52 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Aug 13 2004, 08:57 AM

Do you realize that I've heard many accusations against Joseph Smith Jr. before too? Do you suppose I'm simply ignoring them? Well, guess what, I haven't. I've looked into many of them and have seen that most of them are based on a false presentation or understanding of the facts and evidence. There are some accusations based on issues where facts or evidence are lacking, but based on the facts and evidence I could find it's apparent to me that those accusations are most probably also based on a false presentation or understanding.

So all that he did is OK with you, Ray?

That's fine if that is the case, but I'd appreciate if you didn't imply that I don't understand it b/c I don't have some 'light' that you happen to have.

Perhaps I could say the same about you not having the 'light' that I DO possess. Not that I AM saying that, but perhaps I could...

Shantress,

You know what is not ok with me? When people such as yourself come on this board and make accusations against Joseph Smith with absolutely ZERO support for such a claim. You've done so in this very thread. You have no evidence to support your claim or at least you've not presented such.

You talk about Joseph Smith Marrying other people's wives. Are you even aware that at that time it was common practice for people to be sealed to various leaders of the church? The sealing power had just been restored and so people felt it necessary to be sealed to those they felt would remain faithful. Did you even consider this or that that might account for Joseph being sealed othem men's wives? If you chose to leave the church based on the paucity of information you've presented so far then I wonder what depths you go to to make other important decisions.

I'm going to be annoyingly nitpicky here and say that Kevin is mistaken. Shanstress did not mention JS's plural marriages in the post he quoted, she said it in the previous one.

Kevin - Do you not believe that those sealings you speak of and plural marriage are one and the same? If plural marriage was practiced by JS with other men's wives there's a reasonable chance that consummation of those marriages did take place.

M.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Aug 13 2004, 09:59 AM

Kevin,

That was not the only reason I left the church - I said it was the 'biggest' reason.  It got me to looking more deeply into the church.  Through months of careful reading, praying, and speaking with people (Mormons and non), I realized that I did not believe it was true.

Fine. Yo obviously can leave for whatever reason you want. However, you've made claims that joseph was an adulterer etc. with absolutely no evidence. If you based your decision, even if only in part, on no evidence, then that appears to be anything but reasonable to me.

I wouldn't have even said anything if it weren't for Ray's snide remarks.  You guys don't want non-LDS to say anything bad about your church, but you can sling the dirt all you want?  I think not.  If I'm not welcome I won't stay.

Who is you guys? Exactly where did sling any dirt?

Anyway, are you saying that the husbands of the women JS married weren't faithful?  Not from what I've read.  Plus, what if they weren't?  Was he just going to marry every woman with an unfaithful husband?  And I'm sure he didn't have sex with any of them, huh?  Can you 'present the evidence' that he did not?

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. My understanding is that the sealings were not marriages in the sense that they were legal marriages based upon the laws of the land. These women were sealed to Joseph in much the same way that a son or daughter might might be sealed to a parent.

Evidence that he had no marital relations with any of the children? Sure. How about the fact that there are no known offspring? Might that be considered evidence? I think so.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Maureen@Aug 13 2004, 11:36 AM

I'm going to be annoyingly nitpicky here an say that Kevin is mistaken. Shanstress did not mention JS's plural marriages in the post he quoted, she said it in the previous one.

M.

LOL!! Right, it was the previous post. I'm human.

Kevin -  Do you not believe that those sealings you speak of and plural marriage are one and the same?

Maureen, I don't believe that these marriages were any different from the sealings that took place where men were sealed to other men for the purpose of establishing a priesthood link.

If plural marriage was practiced by JS with other men's wives there's a reasonable chance that consummation of those marriages did take place.

I don't believe that JS did practice plural marriage with other men's wives. I believe that the sealings were for the purpose I stated above. I've seen no compelling evidence that would indicate that Joseph practiced plural marriage with anyone other than those who single prior to actually marrying him. And, such evidence certainly hasn't been presented here by those who make the claims.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Kevin@Aug 13 2004, 01:09 PM

I don't believe that JS did practice plural marriage with other men's wives. I believe that the sealings were for the purpose I stated above. I've seen no compelling evidence that would indicate that Joseph practiced plural marriage with anyone other than those who single prior to actually marrying him. And, such evidence certainly hasn't been presented here by those who make the claims.

I don't know if you can call this evidence. But the people that submitted the information may have thought it was important.

At familysearch.org there are quite a few submission for Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Some list her father as Windsor Lyon (spellings vary) and some say Joseph Smith.

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/fra...eset_search.asp

M.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Maureen@Aug 13 2004, 11:36 AM

Kevin - Do you not believe that those sealings you speak of and plural marriage are one and the same? If plural marriage was practiced by JS with other men's wives there's a reasonable chance that consummation of those marriages did take place.

M.

I want to answer this question.

No, I do not believe that plural marriage and "sealings" are the same. They are not mentioned at the same time, and the word used was always "sealing". Joseph Smith was "sealed" to ................. (fill in the blank).

I have read the same book that several of you here have, Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma, and none of the "facts" are facts. Most of them are hearsay, only one comes close to possibly being the truth. There are a lot of "facts" that state that the Jesuits are the "Godfathers" of the Catholic Church, but Jason says it is all a myth. Yet applies different criteria to both situations. If you are going to look at the skeletons in one church's closet, you need to look at the skeletons in your own church's closet first. We can look at all the problems inherant in Martin Luther and decide that the protestant movement can't have any validity because of his problems, etc., etc., etc.

No one is perfect save Christ. That is one of the reasons God uses man, so that we learn not to put our trust in the arm of flesh. But that is not the same as not trusting these same men for the good that God helps them perform.

[Ray]

No one is perfect save Christ. That is one of the reasons God uses man, so that we learn not to put our trust in the arm of flesh. But that is not the same as not trusting these same men for the good that God helps them perform.

Thank you, Jenda. I love you more and more when you say things like this. :)

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Kevin@Aug 13 2004, 03:03 PM

Anyway, are you saying that the husbands of the women JS married weren't faithful?  Not from what I've read.  Plus, what if they weren't?  Was he just going to marry every woman with an unfaithful husband?  And I'm sure he didn't have sex with any of them, huh?  Can you 'present the evidence' that he did not?

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. My understanding is that the sealings were not marriages in the sense that they were legal marriages based upon the laws of the land. These women were sealed to Joseph in much the same way that a son or daughter might might be sealed to a parent.

Evidence that he had no marital relations with any of the children? Sure. How about the fact that there are no known offspring? Might that be considered evidence? I think so.

Fine. Yo obviously can leave for whatever reason you want. However, you've made claims that joseph was an adulterer etc. with absolutely no evidence. If you based your decision, even if only in part, on no evidence, then that appears to be anything but reasonable to me.

I will say again that I'm not allowed to post the things I'm referring to. And there is no hard evidence either way. You have to make an educated decision about what to believe about the history of the church. I have done the best I can do in that regard, and it looks like you have to. We just happen to have come to different conclusions.

Who is you guys? Exactly where did sling any dirt?

Sorry, that was unfair... should have said 'Ray'.

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. My understanding is that the sealings were not marriages in the sense that they were legal marriages based upon the laws of the land. These women were sealed to Joseph in much the same way that a son or daughter might might be sealed to a parent.

Based on what I've read (from many of the women themselves), this isn't true. JS also sent their husbands away on missions for long periods of time... convenient.

Evidence that he had no marital relations with any of the children? Sure. How about the fact that there are no known offspring? Might that be considered evidence? I think so.

The word 'known' is key in your statement. There are DNA tests ongoing now. Who knows though if they will make the results public. Guess we'll see.

One question for you Kevin... if it is proven that there are offspring from these 'spiritual wives', what will you think then? Will that change your opinion of your prophet? I don't ask this with a mean spirit. I'm truly curious.

[Snow]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Aug 13 2004, 04:57 PM

The word 'known' is key in your statement. There are DNA tests ongoing now. Who knows though if they will make the results public. Guess we'll see.

DNA tests only take a matter of weeks. Who is the "they" and when did they collect the DNA for testing?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 13 2004, 04:27 PM

No one is perfect save Christ. That is one of the reasons God uses man, so that we learn not to put our trust in the arm of flesh. But that is not the same as not trusting these same men for the good that God helps them perform.

Thank you, Jenda. I love you more and more when you say things like this. :)

Gosh! B)

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 12 2004, 12:56 PM

What greater witness can you have than from God?

That's what Im saying Ray. I don't believe it was God(s) that appeared to Smith.

Feelings can be manipulated and duplicated. Satan can do that. Until you give the evil one enough credit, you're apt to be deceived.

Jason,

Do you believe that Joseph received visions/visitations just not from God?

[Ray]

Jason has left the building...er, I meant forum.

Will he come back? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Aug 13 2004, 04:11 AM

Snow, did the followers of these unsavory Catholic characters stand behind them even after their crimes were known? I'm asking b/c I truly don't know.

That's a major problem in my opinion. LDS people have a difficult time saying that JS was wrong in marrying other mens' wives, a 14 year old, etc. He is still held up as a righteous man. I really don't want to disrespect anyone, but that is the biggest reason why I left the church. I just don't see how anyone could follow a man whose character would allow him to do such things. Then it's always the same canned responses of, "Some things aren't meant for us to understand", or "It will all be made clear to us someday."

Yes and no.

Part of it wasn't a matter of standing behind these evil popes. For some subjects, their power was absolute. They were mass murders and serial killers, they led sexually debached lives, they stole from and tortured their subjects. The subjects had no choice but to take it. Today is is unfathomable to think just how corrupt and vile these heads of church were. Castrating young boys was totally acceptable just to make them prettier singers for the pope's entertainment. One pope dug up the dead body of one of his enemies and had it hung in an act of spite. Incest, rape, killing, you name it, and Christemdom followed. Lest you think that the cases were isolated, they were not. There were numerous such popes and it didn't stop with them, it continued down through the corrupt ranks.

The result was the reformation and 200 years of bloody Catholic/Prostestant warfare that came with it.

The corruption, as we are all well aware continues to this day. In today's paper there is an article whereby the local Catholic Church is trying to buy a 5 bedroom home for 1 1/2 million dollars and then "fix it up" as a residence for a some few priests, all the while the same group in claiming poverty to avoid paying the money it owes to the victims of child rape on the part of the clergy, and lest you think that is isolated, it is not. The horror of it all continued from the rank and file right up to the highest level of Church authority who protected and facilated the sexual molestation and child rape. The molestors and deviates are no small segment of the clergy, if you removed the rapists, the molestors, the homosexuals, those with long term lovers, and those who can't/won't keep their vows, the herd is culled significantly. It is institutionally corrupt.

What's the point? Does that kind of immorality and sin make the Catholic Church invalid? I dunno. If people are able to find their way past the corruption and find Christ, good for them. My point is that Jason is nuts to use the alledged or imagined sins of Joseph Smith as a disqualification fo the LDS Church when the refuses to apply any same standard, or even a fraction of the standard against his own faith.

Admittedly Jason's track is not his alone. Most all critic's of the LDS Church who belong to other religions must of necessity ignore their own traditions shortcomings in attacking the Church. The LDS Church is always, always held to a higher standard by the critics.