I guess this was before Joseph Smith heard the AUDIBLE VOICE OF GOD that commanded him to form the Kirtland Bank of Ohio. Well the bank failed and the depositors lost ever dime they sank into it. I wonder how could a DIVINE bank fail?
Hitler gets a pretty fair shake for his evils in your LDS view.
God is just. I trust and accept that.
I do not accept a God that gives a kingdom to a man like Hitler.
Do me a favor and go watch some videos on the holocaust or go visit one of the concentrations camps and still smell the burning flesh even after all these years, then, you come back and tell me why Hitler gets a kingdom.
"Jesus suffer so we can return to the presense of God, if we follow him, and to free us from physical death."
That is not an accurate portrayal of what the Bible teaches....just so you know.
"But how about burning for all eternity?? is that fair for those that failed to believe? ".....Jesus Himself said "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. "
Why is the Bible only a valid entity to you when you can choose sections of it to twist around to fit the LDS mindset?
What cracks me up is like passages that you all swear is a prophecy of the book of Mormon from the OT and that passage is valid...BUT, a passage written by the same author, in the same book that refutes your LDS doctrine is not valid.
So, someone screwed with only the passages that don't agree with LDS and left the other passages alone?
For instance, you LDS practically make love to your "Ezekiel two sticks prophecy in Ezekiel 37"....but, yet, most of the book of Ezekiel talks about Gods judgment against the wicked. You would reject where Ezekiel speaks of a just God and accept a prophecy from the same author probably written within days of each other?
Is your acceptance of verse A only dependent on the burning of your bosom?
There are 3 other religions in the world today that employ the burning in the bosom when trying to know truth, so why does verse B give a burning in the bosom to all 4 religions, yet, all 4 religions would understand verse B differently.
How do you decide which words in the Bible are truth and which aren't?
There are over 30,000 verses in the Bible, and 823,156 words.....so which ones are true?
Out of 823,156 words in the King James Version of the Bible, has the LDS ever said "442 of the 823,156 words of the King James version of the Bible are translated correctly and the other 822,714 words left over are not translated correctly"?
"I believe (my opinion) that certain scriptures in the Old Testament were tampered"
Its interesting that the synagoges of Jesus time had the Old Testament writings and Jesus quoted the old testament writings MANY times and never once did Jesus say "hey guys...its been tampered with"..
Don't forget that the dead sea scrolls agree with portions that were already out...and don't forget that the RCC didn't have control of the OT.....the OT came through the Jews
@angelcollector22 First of all, both the NT and the OT were tampered, the OT was tampered before the dead sea scrolls existed, and the NT was tampered in the beginning of the 2nd century.
Maybe Jesus did saw that the OT was altered, but since the NT got altered also.
1) which verses were tampered with? Which ones do you throw out and which do you keep? Is psalm 23 okay and psalm 101 a tampered portion? How do you know?
2) What proof do you have of the tampering?
3) So, is the Bible the only holy book that has been tampered with? what about the Qur'an? LDS writings? Talmud? Vedas? Pali Tripitaka? All the other hundreds of holy book?
How do you know Matthew 23 has not been tampered with?
And furthermore, what Matthew 23 is showing is that those who accept Christ will not come into condemnation.....God is showing the ultimate mercy by providing a way of escape.
It is up to each person if they want to accept that way of escape, if they want to accept His mercy.
@angelcollector22 The evidences that an angel appeared, Golden Plates, and divine translation, are a lot more powerful than the evidences for the ressurection of Jesus. I believe that Jesus ressurected, because of the Holy Ghost, not because of the suppose "evidences". I have done real research, and there are powerful evidences for the BofM.
"Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?" w w w infidels org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5 html
"Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?" w w w infidels org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5 html"
That is not research.That is looking up anti-Josh McDowells sites.
If I go on an antimormon site, I go back to LDS official site and I read articles from LDS members and I read LDS scriptures.
Real research of a book or a concept is only done if you either 1) read the book in question or 2) thoroughly research the topic (as I am doing with LDS)
Evidence that an angel appeared to Smith was witnessed by him and another time by, if I remember, a select few of his cronies (it was really made up, but, that is the claim of it being witnessed)
The resurrection has the evidence of about 500 people seeing him after they also saw him take his last breath days before. (and if you were to take BoM as factual..which I don't....Jesus appeared to many according to LDS here in the Americas)
Thats TONS more proof of the resurrection then Smiths story
@angelcollector22 The difference is that I can prove that more than 11 witnesses (including Emma), claim to have seen Golden Plates, I can prove that witnesses claim to have witness the translation, I can prove that 4 people claim to have seen an angel.
Yes 500 is impressive, but you can't prove that 500 claim they saw the ressurected Jesus.
We have powerful historical evidences for the BofM, and powerful evidences that they were honest and sincere people.
@angelcollector22 I have evidences that there were more than 11 witnesses (11 official).
Check Enclopedia Brittanicca.
Every non-mormon historian will agree that more than 11 witnesses claimed to have seen golden plates, and 4 claim to have seen an angel (including JS).
I cannot prove what they claim, but I can prove that those peope made the claim, and I have evidences that they were sincere people.
Do you have eyewitness accounts of the ressurected Jesus?? (outside Bible)
You are not getting it......all supposed eyewitness accounts of the supposed angelic apparition are now dead.
You are simply believing that claim.
Everything in the NT that says that they were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus are making that claim.
I don't think that non Christian historians are ever going to imply that those who wrote the New Testament didn't write what they believed they saw. (even if the historians don't believe the happenings)
@angelcollector22 The 3 witnesses that saw an angel, continued to testify about their experience even in their dead beds. None of the Book of Mormon witnesses ever denied their testimony about the BofM.
We have original biographies, first and second hand accounts, original documents of eyewitnesses, we have a lot of historial evidence. Its undeniable that they did made the claim, and they were sincere people.
No single eyewitness account, outside the Bible (NT not that many authors).
The same can be said of Old Testament and New Testament peoples as well.
It also can be said of a scientologist too.
There are plenty of scientologists who are actually living today that have claimed to meet Lord Xenu....and plenty of Catholics that are living today that will say they are eyewitnesses to apparitions of Mary.
@angelcollector22 But do you have any evidence that OT and NT people testify of seeing supernatural events?? Do you have eyewitness acounts?? Original?? Noo
A proffesional, can make someone hallucinate, but BofM witnesses couldn't have hallucinated the same angel, at the same time, and the translation process, and the golden plates. No one reported that JS had a BIble or note, during the traslation.
Maybe the apparitions of Mary, were true, God can send angels.
@angelcollector22 the problem is that you don't have any evidence that Moses existed. There are more evidences that a false messiah called, "Simon of Perea" existed, than any of the NT apostles.
Again, you have no eyewitness acounts outside the NT. So by your logic, why is the Bible the word of God, but not the Book of Mormon??
Its easier for someone to get hypnotise, and see Xenu. I am just telling you evidence.
IF marry appiered to people, then she didn't say to worship her
@angelcollector22 I don't know if Mary appeared of not, but she wouldn't ask people to worphip her. Do you have any evidence that the people that claim this were sincere people?? was it in a group, individual?
we have plenty of evidencesthe BofM witnesses where sincere people, and where in strong circumstances, and they had many good reasons to deny their testimony, but no one did.
So again, why is the Bible the word of god, but not the BofM??
I have studied the apparitions of Mary and sometimes it is in a group and sometimes not....and yes, they were sincere and yes, Mary in some of her apparitions asked to pray to her.
The claimed BoM accounts are only within your church.
I don't see how that is different.
If a scientologist told me they met Lord Xenu 25 years ago and a Buddhist said that an eyewitness WROTE that he met Buddha in a pillar of light 300 years ago...but, yet no one else but a scientologist personally met Xenu and no one but a Buddhist WROTE about meeting Buddha....then no one else but the faithful experienced that.
I am not claiming that there is not evidence that the founding fathers of your church EXISTED...lol...of course they existed...there is historical evidence....my argument is that there is no evidence outside of LDS faithful that the vision, the golden plates, or the translations happened.....
You are asking for a eyewitness outside of the Bible and I am asking for an eyewitness outside of the LDS inner circle.
@angelcollector22 there is evidence that the golden plates existed, outside faithful LDS. I will send it to you now.
I do believe in Jesus, but you have no eyewitness account outside the NT. The ealiest account I believe comes from a Roman emperor, but he was born after the cruxifiction happen, I think.
"there is evidence that the golden plates existed"
what, are you sending me some abstract...."oh, well some time in the past some peoples wrote on pressed gold metal and thats why we know the golden plates in the 1830's existed."...even though no one but LDS faithful saw it in the 1800's
@angelcollector22 But you have no hard evidence that the NT apostles even existed. Again, there are more evidences even for "Simon of Perea" that lived before the NT apostles.
The evidence of the Book of Mormon witnesses is a lot more powerful.
@angelcollector22 I do believe that the NT apostles existed, but I admit that there is no hard archeological or historical evidence for their existence. I am not going to lie. I hope we one day find hard evidence for their existance.
My point is the Book of Mormon witnesses evidence is far stronger.
"The problem with your claim, is that their is no hard evidence that NT apostles existed, we have hard evidence that BofM witnesses existed."
why would YOU as a Mormon make that statement when your founding LDS Fathers claimed to have been anointed by what? at least two or three of the NT apostles?????????????????
That is how YOUR religion says the Melchizedek priesthood was able to continue...by the NT apostles laying hands on YOUR founding fathers.....
So, are the scientologists who have met Lord Xenu....since they are eyewitness accounts makes them valid...by your logic...because someone said it, it must be so?
"None of the Book of Mormon witnesses ever denied their testimony about the BofM."
None of the New Testament writers denied their testimony as well....and they weren't just shot in a scuffle....they were beheaded and fed to lions for their testimony.
"Do you have eyewitness accounts of the ressurected Jesus?? (outside Bible)"
You do not have any eyewitness accounts outside of the LDS faithful, so, why would you expect that there would be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection outside the Bible?
The only way that you are going to go about trying to prove that there were witnesses to the Gold plates is by having me read something from 175 years ago.
Neither one of us has live feed of the happenings of either the New Testament or the findings and writings of the book of Mormon.
@angelcollector22 well thanks for sharing your interpretations, but I am not going to Bible Bash for this reason.
"Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning."--Robert Green Ingersoll
Instead, please answer my question. Why do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?? But not the BofM?
@angelcollector22 Well, if it was not against the law, and against my church, then yes.
If I felt in love, I would marry a 14 year old, I am 22, and I would marry an 18 year old. But JS only got sealed to Helen, not a shred of evidence, of any sexuality, and her parents knew about it.
Again, just ask any historian, it was okay for a TEENAGER to marry a older man in the 19th century.
Because, even if you liars say that it was not sexual, that is still an awful big huge thing to place on a child.
We forget that a child was in the middle of this nonsense...as if her confusion was of no consequence because Smith had to secure his place in celestial glory.
it is plausible given that table that "sometimes" younger girls married.....can you show me where younger girls routinely or it was even acceptable for older men to marry this same age group?
For instance, my lovely daughter is 14....in 1830, would it have been acceptable for her to marry someone 40 plus years old?
Or it is more likely that these girls married young boys of roughly the same age.
I am 22 years old, and I have other Mormon friends that know far more than me, Especially those at fairlds
Copy and Paste.
JS only got sealed to Helen, not a shred of evidence, of any sexuality, and her parents knew about it.Again, just ask any historian, it was okay for a TEENAGER to marry a older man in the 19th century.Or look it up in a unbiased website, or encyclopedia, or university.
@angelcollector22 Good night, and please ma'am keep your hypocrisy out of public.
Obviously you haven't read the OT.
"DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go"
and again, if it was not sexual....then it is pretty important to find out why a 14 year old could not wait until she had turned into womanhood to be sealed to anyone, let alone Joseph Smith.
Would Smiths head explode if he waited until she was not a child anymore....?
Would Smith lose his future celestial glory if he did not marry her that day, that year, or even that decade????
You were telling me that it was normal for 14 year olds to marry in the 18th century and I am telling you that it was not normal. I am not specifically talking about any of smiths wives.....I am speaking of 14 year old children in general from that time period.
Helens Mother agreed because if they didn't know, and Helen was told to not tell her parents....it would, well, you know, put old Smith in a bad light....and you are all about protecting his reputation.
When will you learn that most of what I may read anti mormon, I take what I read and go to your official writings to see if it says that or used to say it in your writings.....mostly, it is spot on.
Don't worry....it is not just mormons.......like Catholics, they claim to not worship Mary, but they pray to her. And, children of God who claim that they don't believe this or that, but it is in their writings.
No, LDS, if you read the writings of Laura Ingalls Wilder of the same time period....her writings were real happenings and she had no reason to revise history and she didn't have a religious following to deceive....her writings talk about being horrified in the VERY few instances of marriage, and that was usually 16, not 14....and her writings talk about how most parents made the children wait until 18.
And, in the area of science...in that time period, menses hadn't even started
"Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives"
Atrocities:
"Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (NIV)"
We believe in the Bible "as far as its translated correctly"
But I wonder if angelcollector22 believes that God was once cruel??
yeah,,,, I can see where the verse says that seven women will be sealed in marriage to one man...I can see in that verse where polygamy is okay....I can see in that verse where God has said "I command men to take multiple wives during the millenium".......sure, sure...........
Historian Todd Compton: "The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage "
sure......so you Mr skeptic....with your rational mind and all can disbelieve most of what is reality......but, when it comes to a man my age sealing himself in marriage to a 14 year old...your rational mind just accepts that the 14 year old would not be toyed with until she reached of age?
Oh, rational one......if Henry Monson sealed himself to a 14 year old child, you would sing his praises?
@angelcollector22 With all respect ma'am, PLEASE stop being a hypocrite and read the atrocities in the OT
I know what the reality is, and you have ZERO historical evidences for your accusation against JS. Even if he would have had sex with her, it would have been okay, since she was his wife, and it was the 19th century.
However, all the historical evidences point that JS did NOT have sex with Helen, you don't even have DNA evidence of ancestry. Accusations require evidence.
so, okay, you are saying that if they had sex, that would be okay.
So, if it was not a big deal, then why was Helen told to keep it from her parents.
From just experience we all know that if a child that young is told to keep something from their parents, especially in the area of the opposite sex, then we have a young child in danger and that child needs to be protected.
@angelcollector22 Why this, why that, is NOT evidence. Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged"
“The prophet’s marriage to her seems to have been largely dynastic—a union arranged by Joseph and Heber to seal the Kimball family to a seer, church president, and presiding patriarchal figure of the dispensation of the fullness of times" (Compton 1997, p. 486)
Helen's parents were aware, but plural marriage was kept secret for protection.
again, Joseph could have done the right thing OF THAT TIME PERIOD......ASK for her hand in marriage from the parents, wait until 18 as most did, and NOT ask her to withold this info from her parents....
His dynasty for a 14 year old could have and SHOULD have waited until she was older.
again, no....in the 19th century, it was across the board expected that you ask for a daughters hand in marriage from the parents (not sneak the marriage) and most girls waited until 18, and if it was earlier, it was 16 and that was unusual.
Your church is trying to teach you that is how it was done....it was not done that way.
This is why most of the back to etiquette and class parents of today want to go back to the ways of the 19th century because we have lost the art of courting, etc
@angelcollector22 I have evidence that JS motives where NOT lustful.
* It was okay in the 19th century for a women to marry as a teenager, yes even a 14 year old.
* But all the evidences point that JS did NOT have sex with Helen (14 yr old)
* He got sealed to them, but their is no shred of evidence that JS had sex with women already married, even DNA evidence refutes accusations against JS,
Please stop being a hypocrite and read the atrocities in the OT
and so there are some fine opinions written in history of some not so fine people....
there are people that thought that Stalin was above reproach.
You are only accepting of what is only said good of a man who lived close to 200 years ago and throwing out what may sway your faith in him.....thats called history revisionism, sir......and it is not being truthful to yourself or anyone else in the long run
You can think Abe Lincoln still roams the white house all you want....good for you!
Guess he didn't even make it to the Mormon spirit prison......
Whatever.
And, you can vouch for Joseph Smith, why? You were there? You saw that he was upfront and honest with every wife...he didn't hide marriages? he didn't marry the pregnant wife of another man? You were there?
Bible: "DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go." -- infidels org
"archaeological excavations do not support the Biblical Exodus story" -- The Skeptic Society
w w w skeptic com/eskeptic/04-04-05/
THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY is a scientific and educational organization
@LDS4Life71 non-Mormon church historian Ernst Benz wrote:
" Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it exhibits a very great measure of selflessness, a willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of duty"
So, because YOU say Smith was honest.....and you exist almost 200 years after he was alive and didn't even know him....its okay for you to take the stand that he was honest...but, its not okay for other people to believe he was a con man?
what makes you so special?
You speak as if you know him personally......do you know Abe Lincoln personally too? Can you vouch for him as well?
@angelcollector22 non-Mormon church historian Ernst Benz wrote:" Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it exhibits a very great measure of selflessness, a willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of duty"
@angelcollector22 I can prove with historical evidence that JS was sincere
What ever, just keep your anti-mormon nonsense out of public, and stop calling my church ridiculus and read the Bible, please
"DT 25:5-9 A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders"
"EZ 37:1-10 Dry bones come alive"
"EZ 37:1-10 Dry bones come alive."
"AM 8:9 The Sun will be made to set at noon in "clear day.""
I actually don't believe that most of polygamists today are in it for the sexual debauchery....I think they are trying to live the Mormon doctrine.
I do think that the founder of your religion was in it for the sexual debauchery....otherwise, why the secrecy and marrying other mens wives while they were out of town? why keep some wives from his first wife? and why EVER for ANY REASON in everything that is good and pure EVER would he have to be sealed to a 14 YEAR OLD????
"It was okay in the 19th century for a women to marry as a teenager, yes even a 14 year old."
I have been through this......it was NOT okay, not unheard of, but NOT okay......and certainly would not have been okay with Helens parents which is WHY Smith told her to KEEP IT FROM HER PARENTS
I am not going to debate if he had sex with Helen (of course he did...gee).....but, you explain to me WHY he would need to be sealed to a 14 year old in the first place???????
Historian Todd Compton: "The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage "
Bible: "DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go." -- infidels org
"archaeological excavations do not support the Biblical Exodus story" - The Skeptic Society
w w w skeptic com/eskeptic/04-04-05/
THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY is a scientific and educational organization
I guess this was before Joseph Smith heard the AUDIBLE VOICE OF GOD that commanded him to form the Kirtland Bank of Ohio. Well the bank failed and the depositors lost ever dime they sank into it. I wonder how could a DIVINE bank fail?
1138thz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LDS4Life71
"That same choice is given to those that didn't hear in the afterlife also."
Says LDS teachings.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
In reality, I cannot convince you why I believe God is just......so, it is not hypocrisy. It is simply accepting that God does not tolerate sin.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71 God can destroy cities, or allow them to get destroyed by the forces of nature.
However, remember that we believe in the Bible "...as far as its translated correctly"
I believe (my opinion) that certain scriptures in the Old Testament were tampered
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
The thing is I accept the nature of God.
LDS says that not much evil is really punished.
Hitler gets a pretty fair shake for his evils in your LDS view.
God is just. I trust and accept that.
I do not accept a God that gives a kingdom to a man like Hitler.
Do me a favor and go watch some videos on the holocaust or go visit one of the concentrations camps and still smell the burning flesh even after all these years, then, you come back and tell me why Hitler gets a kingdom.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Hitler is going to pay the price in spirit prison. He is going to pay for his crimes.
Obviously you know nothing about LDS theology, but spirit prison won't be an eternity.
Yes God is just, is it just for a person to burn in Hell for all eternity for failing to believe??
Do you believe in a cruel God??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
So, why did Jesus suffer if you can pay for your own sins in spirit prison?
I understand LDS theology..well, I don't understand because it makes no sense at all.
So, Hitler can pay for his own sins so Jesus didn't really have to be "the lamb that was slain for the sins of the world?"
You people are foolish.
God is just...that is why He provided a way. If you do not wish to accept His sacrifice, He gives you what you wanted--eternal separation from Him.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Jesus suffer so we can return to the presense of God, if we follow him, and to free us from physical death.
But how about burning for all eternity?? is that fair for those that failed to believe?
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"Jesus suffer so we can return to the presense of God, if we follow him, and to free us from physical death."
That is not an accurate portrayal of what the Bible teaches....just so you know.
"But how about burning for all eternity?? is that fair for those that failed to believe? ".....Jesus Himself said "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. "
I believe what Jesus said.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Anyways, I have a question.
According to you, why is the Bible the word of God, but not the BofM??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticChristian
"why is the Bible the word of God, but not the BofM?? "
It will take several posts to explain why.....but, I will try.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Why is the Bible only a valid entity to you when you can choose sections of it to twist around to fit the LDS mindset?
What cracks me up is like passages that you all swear is a prophecy of the book of Mormon from the OT and that passage is valid...BUT, a passage written by the same author, in the same book that refutes your LDS doctrine is not valid.
So, someone screwed with only the passages that don't agree with LDS and left the other passages alone?
rational mind?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
For instance, you LDS practically make love to your "Ezekiel two sticks prophecy in Ezekiel 37"....but, yet, most of the book of Ezekiel talks about Gods judgment against the wicked. You would reject where Ezekiel speaks of a just God and accept a prophecy from the same author probably written within days of each other?
You do know that makes no sense?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
or another example....
Psalm 85:11 that one of you two just quoted to me about "truth springing forth out of the ground" as a reference to the book of Mormon....
And, you, Skeptic, I am sure, accept the above...
Yet, the writer of Psalms also speaks of Gods wrath to an evil world....
How can you be sure of which statements in Psalms are true?
The statements that speak of a God who punishes or a statement that LDS has claimed ownership?
How do you decide?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
another example:
LDS uses John 10:16 to say it is a reference about "the other sheep..ie, the ancient americans".....
And, the author of the book of John also spoke of Jesus being God in John 1...but, you reject that.
John 1 is rejected for what it says and John 10 is not rejected.
why?
John 10 is accepted, but, when Jesus says that those who don't believe in Him will be condemned in John 3, you reject.
why?
How do you decide which words are true and which are not?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
Is your acceptance of verse A only dependent on the burning of your bosom?
There are 3 other religions in the world today that employ the burning in the bosom when trying to know truth, so why does verse B give a burning in the bosom to all 4 religions, yet, all 4 religions would understand verse B differently.
How do you decide which words in the Bible are truth and which aren't?
There are over 30,000 verses in the Bible, and 823,156 words.....so which ones are true?
how do you know?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Out of 823,156 words in the King James Version of the Bible, has the LDS ever said "442 of the 823,156 words of the King James version of the Bible are translated correctly and the other 822,714 words left over are not translated correctly"?
Or, does LDS just kind of "wing it"?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
to bed, will discuss later
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"I believe (my opinion) that certain scriptures in the Old Testament were tampered"
Its interesting that the synagoges of Jesus time had the Old Testament writings and Jesus quoted the old testament writings MANY times and never once did Jesus say "hey guys...its been tampered with"..
Don't forget that the dead sea scrolls agree with portions that were already out...and don't forget that the RCC didn't have control of the OT.....the OT came through the Jews
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 First of all, both the NT and the OT were tampered, the OT was tampered before the dead sea scrolls existed, and the NT was tampered in the beginning of the 2nd century.
Maybe Jesus did saw that the OT was altered, but since the NT got altered also.
Matthew 23:23
... and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone
OT scriptures I showed you, don't seem like mercy
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticChristian
"both the NT and the OT were tampered"
1) which verses were tampered with? Which ones do you throw out and which do you keep? Is psalm 23 okay and psalm 101 a tampered portion? How do you know?
2) What proof do you have of the tampering?
3) So, is the Bible the only holy book that has been tampered with? what about the Qur'an? LDS writings? Talmud? Vedas? Pali Tripitaka? All the other hundreds of holy book?
Or is it just the Bible?
How do you know?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
How do you know Matthew 23 has not been tampered with?
And furthermore, what Matthew 23 is showing is that those who accept Christ will not come into condemnation.....God is showing the ultimate mercy by providing a way of escape.
It is up to each person if they want to accept that way of escape, if they want to accept His mercy.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 I don't know, it probably was.
So according to you, why is the Bible the word of God, but not the BofM??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
According to me...
well, my decision to trust the Bible was after years and years of research...referencing and cross referencing within the pages of the Bible...
comparing it to other religious writings...
Researching non biblical writings of the same time period..etc etc
I really do not think I could give you my reasons within several posts...
I would direct you to read and study the Bible...
as well as two other good books:
cont...
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 The evidences that an angel appeared, Golden Plates, and divine translation, are a lot more powerful than the evidences for the ressurection of Jesus. I believe that Jesus ressurected, because of the Holy Ghost, not because of the suppose "evidences". I have done real research, and there are powerful evidences for the BofM.
"Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?" w w w infidels org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5 html
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?" w w w infidels org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5 html"
That is not research.That is looking up anti-Josh McDowells sites.
If I go on an antimormon site, I go back to LDS official site and I read articles from LDS members and I read LDS scriptures.
Real research of a book or a concept is only done if you either 1) read the book in question or 2) thoroughly research the topic (as I am doing with LDS)
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Okay, see the private message I send you.
I send you a video that has an evidence for the Book of Mormon. But remember, don't go to anti-mormon websites.
There are many avidences for the Book of Mormon.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
ugh....I am trying to watch the video you sent....but, its kinda dry....
I am watching it though.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
Evidence that an angel appeared to Smith was witnessed by him and another time by, if I remember, a select few of his cronies (it was really made up, but, that is the claim of it being witnessed)
The resurrection has the evidence of about 500 people seeing him after they also saw him take his last breath days before. (and if you were to take BoM as factual..which I don't....Jesus appeared to many according to LDS here in the Americas)
Thats TONS more proof of the resurrection then Smiths story
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
The Golden Plates were supposedly viewed by a handful of men.
The resurrected Jesus was viewed by 500 men.
There were only a select few LDS cronies that watched while Smith translated.
But 500 people viewed and in some cases touched the once dead Christ.
There is NO comparison.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 The difference is that I can prove that more than 11 witnesses (including Emma), claim to have seen Golden Plates, I can prove that witnesses claim to have witness the translation, I can prove that 4 people claim to have seen an angel.
Yes 500 is impressive, but you can't prove that 500 claim they saw the ressurected Jesus.
We have powerful historical evidences for the BofM, and powerful evidences that they were honest and sincere people.
Private message please
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
You cannot prove that there were 11 witnesses. You are taking someones written word for it just the same as I am taking someones written word for it.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 I have evidences that there were more than 11 witnesses (11 official).
Check Enclopedia Brittanicca.
Every non-mormon historian will agree that more than 11 witnesses claimed to have seen golden plates, and 4 claim to have seen an angel (including JS).
I cannot prove what they claim, but I can prove that those peope made the claim, and I have evidences that they were sincere people.
Do you have eyewitness accounts of the ressurected Jesus?? (outside Bible)
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
You are not getting it......all supposed eyewitness accounts of the supposed angelic apparition are now dead.
You are simply believing that claim.
Everything in the NT that says that they were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus are making that claim.
I don't think that non Christian historians are ever going to imply that those who wrote the New Testament didn't write what they believed they saw. (even if the historians don't believe the happenings)
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 The 3 witnesses that saw an angel, continued to testify about their experience even in their dead beds. None of the Book of Mormon witnesses ever denied their testimony about the BofM.
We have original biographies, first and second hand accounts, original documents of eyewitnesses, we have a lot of historial evidence. Its undeniable that they did made the claim, and they were sincere people.
No single eyewitness account, outside the Bible (NT not that many authors).
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"their experience even in their dead beds."
The same can be said of Old Testament and New Testament peoples as well.
It also can be said of a scientologist too.
There are plenty of scientologists who are actually living today that have claimed to meet Lord Xenu....and plenty of Catholics that are living today that will say they are eyewitnesses to apparitions of Mary.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 But do you have any evidence that OT and NT people testify of seeing supernatural events?? Do you have eyewitness acounts?? Original?? Noo
A proffesional, can make someone hallucinate, but BofM witnesses couldn't have hallucinated the same angel, at the same time, and the translation process, and the golden plates. No one reported that JS had a BIble or note, during the traslation.
Maybe the apparitions of Mary, were true, God can send angels.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I am taking their word for it.....just the same as you taking their word for it.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 the problem is that you don't have any evidence that Moses existed. There are more evidences that a false messiah called, "Simon of Perea" existed, than any of the NT apostles.
Again, you have no eyewitness acounts outside the NT. So by your logic, why is the Bible the word of God, but not the Book of Mormon??
Its easier for someone to get hypnotise, and see Xenu. I am just telling you evidence.
IF marry appiered to people, then she didn't say to worship her
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
actually Mary asked to pray to her in her apparitions.
I don't think either one of us agrees to praying to anyone else but the one true God.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 I don't know if Mary appeared of not, but she wouldn't ask people to worphip her. Do you have any evidence that the people that claim this were sincere people?? was it in a group, individual?
we have plenty of evidencesthe BofM witnesses where sincere people, and where in strong circumstances, and they had many good reasons to deny their testimony, but no one did.
So again, why is the Bible the word of god, but not the BofM??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I have studied the apparitions of Mary and sometimes it is in a group and sometimes not....and yes, they were sincere and yes, Mary in some of her apparitions asked to pray to her.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
The NT eye witness accounts are within the NT.
The claimed BoM accounts are only within your church.
I don't see how that is different.
If a scientologist told me they met Lord Xenu 25 years ago and a Buddhist said that an eyewitness WROTE that he met Buddha in a pillar of light 300 years ago...but, yet no one else but a scientologist personally met Xenu and no one but a Buddhist WROTE about meeting Buddha....then no one else but the faithful experienced that.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 "The NT eye witness accounts are within the NT"
The Nephite prophets, eye witness accounts are within the BofM.
Do you want to see a debate between Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman ???
watch?v=eRQ9WaxEjvc
The problem with your claim, is that their is no hard evidence that NT apostles existed, we have hard evidence that BofM witnesses existed.
"If a scientologist told me"
One?? or a group of people that witness the same events??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I am not claiming that there is not evidence that the founding fathers of your church EXISTED...lol...of course they existed...there is historical evidence....my argument is that there is no evidence outside of LDS faithful that the vision, the golden plates, or the translations happened.....
You are asking for a eyewitness outside of the Bible and I am asking for an eyewitness outside of the LDS inner circle.
Our requests are no different.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 there is evidence that the golden plates existed, outside faithful LDS. I will send it to you now.
I do believe in Jesus, but you have no eyewitness account outside the NT. The ealiest account I believe comes from a Roman emperor, but he was born after the cruxifiction happen, I think.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"I do believe in Jesus, but you have no eyewitness account outside the NT. "
You have NO eyewitness account of any LDS visions and revelations OUTSIDE of the LDS church.
No difference.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"there is evidence that the golden plates existed"
what, are you sending me some abstract...."oh, well some time in the past some peoples wrote on pressed gold metal and thats why we know the golden plates in the 1830's existed."...even though no one but LDS faithful saw it in the 1800's
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 But you have no hard evidence that the NT apostles even existed. Again, there are more evidences even for "Simon of Perea" that lived before the NT apostles.
The evidence of the Book of Mormon witnesses is a lot more powerful.
Check out the Private message I send you
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"But you have no hard evidence that the NT apostles even existed."
Again...I don't see why you as a Mormon would make that statement since your founding LDS fathers claimed to meet at least 2 of the NT apostles.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 I do believe that the NT apostles existed, but I admit that there is no hard archeological or historical evidence for their existence. I am not going to lie. I hope we one day find hard evidence for their existance.
My point is the Book of Mormon witnesses evidence is far stronger.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticChristian
"but I admit that there is no hard archeological or historical evidence for their existence."
so, let me see if I understand what you are saying...
so, when the LDS early prophets said they witnessed the Gold plates and they witnessed the translation....that is hard evidence for ya.
But when the early LDS prophets said they witnessed the physical appearance of NT apostles in the 1830's, you don't believe them?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
1976-The Allagash Alien Abduction
4 witnesses, 4 people abducted, 4 stories that corroborated each other...4 people that historically existed.
I still don't believe in Aliens.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 If a group of people claims to have been in a forrest, and they claim they were abducted by aliens, there are only 2 possibilities.
1) they are telling the truth
2) they are all lying.
during hypnosis a proffesional can hypnotise people, but obviously it would have to be in a room.
I do have plenty of historical evidences, that BofM witnesses were honest and sincere about their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
There is a third possibility...
They were abducted, something happened to them, something weird...
except they were not aliens.
Therefore, in that case, they were not lying, they were telling the truth...but, were mistaken.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"but you have no eyewitness account outside the NT. "
according to LDS, there is eyewitnesses.
After all, it claims to be another testament of Jesus Christ.
I don't hold to that claim...but, well....
angelcollector22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angelcollector22 But you have no hard evidence that the NT apostles even existed.
Again, there are more evidences even for "Simon of Perea" that lived before the NT apostles.
The evidence of the Book of Mormon witnesses is a lot more powerful.Check out the Private message I send you
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"One?? or a group of people that witness the same events??"
The higher ups in scientology have meetings with Lord Xenu...like board meetings.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"The problem with your claim, is that their is no hard evidence that NT apostles existed, we have hard evidence that BofM witnesses existed."
why would YOU as a Mormon make that statement when your founding LDS Fathers claimed to have been anointed by what? at least two or three of the NT apostles?????????????????
That is how YOUR religion says the Melchizedek priesthood was able to continue...by the NT apostles laying hands on YOUR founding fathers.....
WOW
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
The evidence that Moses existed is written in the OT as well as referenced by Jesus in the NT.
The Quran mentions Moses 136 times.
The LDS scriptures also reference Moses. And talk about the burning bush.
And a geneology in the LDS book of Moses has most of the same people that is in the OT up until Moses time.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 the evidence that Nephite prophets existed is written in the BofM, as well as a refference in the D&C.
I do believe that Moses existed, but you are no archeological or historical evidence.
I don't know if Marry appeared, and if she did appeared, maybe the people that saw her, interpret her wrong.
Buddah never claim to worship him, but you see a lot of people worship him.
My point is that, the BofM witness evidence, is a lot stronger than evidences for the Bible.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Mary asked groups of people to pray to her.....and there were hundreds of people that heard the same thing, in some instances.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
So, are the scientologists who have met Lord Xenu....since they are eyewitness accounts makes them valid...by your logic...because someone said it, it must be so?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I believe one of two things....
neither of which is hallucinations.
1) Smith lied
2) Smith saw an angel of light
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"Maybe the apparitions of Mary, were true, God can send angels."
God does not send angels for us to worship.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
there are also first and second hand accounts of the biblical resurrection as well
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I am sure Moses talked about the dividing of the sea on his death bed as well.
And, I am sure that John did not deny his visions from the book of Revelation through the rest of his life either.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"None of the Book of Mormon witnesses ever denied their testimony about the BofM."
None of the New Testament writers denied their testimony as well....and they weren't just shot in a scuffle....they were beheaded and fed to lions for their testimony.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
"Do you have eyewitness accounts of the ressurected Jesus?? (outside Bible)"
You do not have any eyewitness accounts outside of the LDS faithful, so, why would you expect that there would be eyewitness accounts of the resurrection outside the Bible?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Of course, LDS itself has an eyewitness account of the resurrected Christ (or so they claim).
Supposedly Smith saw Christ after He resurrected.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
The only way that you are going to go about trying to prove that there were witnesses to the Gold plates is by having me read something from 175 years ago.
Neither one of us has live feed of the happenings of either the New Testament or the findings and writings of the book of Mormon.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticChristian
"powerful evidences that they were honest and sincere people."
My personal opinion is that most Mormons today and in the 1800's were honest and sincere people.
Honest and sincere is not criteria needed for knowing what is true and what is not.
I have come across wiccans that were honest and sincere. Buddhists are incredibly honest and sincere as well.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
These books are in my in home library:
Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell.
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
I have read them cover to cover a few times.
In my parents home is an extensive library that includes a set of Great Books which goes through all of history, starting from the beginning.
I cannot do your research for you.
I can only do my own...
LDS is way beyond tainted....
You do not agree...therefore, blinders will stay on.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angelcollector22 well thanks for sharing your interpretations, but I am not going to Bible Bash for this reason.
"Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning."--Robert Green Ingersoll
Instead, please answer my question. Why do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?? But not the BofM?
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71 Good night, I am tired too :)
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
oh, yes....sure I am.
Because if your lying prophet can do it....then the rest of you guys should be able to stomach marrying a child, right?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
so Joseph Smith is God?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71 angelcollector22's arguments are fallacious.
"Why this" "what that" proves nothing.
The reason for the sealing is just so simple, God inspired Joseph Smith.
Commandment and sealing, and she ignores an important historian on this.
Todd Compton.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
God inspired Smith to marry a 14 year old?
So, if God was having Smith have Helen as sealed to Him and it was for a future life, why was the sealing done at the young age of 14?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 It wouldn't' matter when, IT WAS OKAY IN THE 19TH CENTURY FOR A WOMEN TO MARRY AS A TEENAGER.
You want proof????????????? Here it is!!
Scroll down
w w w law cornell edu/wex/table_marriage
Scroll down, in some states it was 14 and 15.
Also, look at the 1850 Census of those married, look it up.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
It doesn't matter when.....? okay.
So, if it was okay in 20 years to marry 14 year old girls and you saw a cute one, would you marry her?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Well, if it was not against the law, and against my church, then yes.
If I felt in love, I would marry a 14 year old, I am 22, and I would marry an 18 year old. But JS only got sealed to Helen, not a shred of evidence, of any sexuality, and her parents knew about it.
Again, just ask any historian, it was okay for a TEENAGER to marry a older man in the 19th century.
Or look it up in a unbiased website.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
how old are you skeptic?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
you are 22?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
then, let me just say....if a guy your age ever got near my 14 year old daughter, I'd get some target practicing in.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
again.....sealing was impossible 5 years later for young Helen?
Was Helen going to drop off the face of the earth if he didn't seal her then?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Why would JS wait?? If God commanded him, and it was okay back then??
JS knew he was going to die anyways, so he had to fulfilled the commandments, he waited for 10 years, he couldn't wait any longer.
Right now, I am 22, would I wait to marry an 18 year old, until she turn 21??
Noo
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticChristian
Big difference between an 18 year old woman and a little girl who has barely formed breast tissue.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Why would Smith wait?
Because, even if you liars say that it was not sexual, that is still an awful big huge thing to place on a child.
We forget that a child was in the middle of this nonsense...as if her confusion was of no consequence because Smith had to secure his place in celestial glory.
pulease.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 LOL PLEASE STUDY SOME HISTORY. Everyone in the 19th century, had a mentality of a child.
It wouldn't make any difference, everyone was a kid 200 years ago.
Please don't ignore the evidence, JS did NOT had sex with Helen.
and
You have to do a lot of reading in the OT, what can you tell me about the atrocities in the OT????
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
everyone was a kid lol
Think you should study about the industrial revolution and find out just how smart the society really was.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Society was brilliant with certain things, but in other things, people were not so smart.
Like the witch trials for example, it was an terrible child's game.
It all depends, on some things people were brilliant, in other's, they were kids.
Anyways, it was okay in the 19th century for a women to marry as a teenager.
Whether you like it or not, its true.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Now, you have not rested your case.
it is plausible given that table that "sometimes" younger girls married.....can you show me where younger girls routinely or it was even acceptable for older men to marry this same age group?
For instance, my lovely daughter is 14....in 1830, would it have been acceptable for her to marry someone 40 plus years old?
Or it is more likely that these girls married young boys of roughly the same age.
My guess? the later
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 JS was not 40 years old, when he married Helen.
I am 22 years old, and I have other Mormon friends that know far more than me, Especially those at fairlds
Copy and Paste.
JS only got sealed to Helen, not a shred of evidence, of any sexuality, and her parents knew about it.Again, just ask any historian, it was okay for a TEENAGER to marry a older man in the 19th century.Or look it up in a unbiased website, or encyclopedia, or university.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
yeah, I think Smith was nearing 40....and I would have been close on his rearend with a rifle if he tried to take my 14 year old as his bride.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
so skeptic man is okay with a man with a shriveled penis marrying a child who either has not started menses or has barely started menses?
got it.
Good night.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Good night, and please ma'am keep your hypocrisy out of public.
Obviously you haven't read the OT.
"DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go"
Do you believe that God was once a cruel God??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Yeah, I have read the old testament.
I am staying put....so, yeah.
Have fun trying to chase me away.
it will continue to be futile.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Question??
Why so much hypocrisy???
Every accusation you make against JS, is 20 times worst in the OT
So why so much hypocrisy??
With all respect
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
and again, if it was not sexual....then it is pretty important to find out why a 14 year old could not wait until she had turned into womanhood to be sealed to anyone, let alone Joseph Smith.
Would Smiths head explode if he waited until she was not a child anymore....?
Would Smith lose his future celestial glory if he did not marry her that day, that year, or even that decade????
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
You were telling me that it was normal for 14 year olds to marry in the 18th century and I am telling you that it was not normal. I am not specifically talking about any of smiths wives.....I am speaking of 14 year old children in general from that time period.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 It was normal for a women to marry as a teenager in the 19th Century. Just ask any historian.
Edgar Allans poe's wife was 13.
"...such an age difference was not uncommon at the time." Baden-Powell,
Just look at the "1850 census distribution of those married". Of course it was totally okay.
AGAIN, of course Helen's parents were aware of the marriage, that even her mother agreed.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
oh, so Poe was a pedophile as well?
Poe was a little crazy...ever read his poetry?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Look at the 1850 census distribution of those married.
Look at all the date and historical documents, of course it was okay.
Poe was just one example,
I could give you the names of thousands of accepted marriages, between a young women (younger than 18), and older men.
Just ask any historian about this, it was totally acceptable, even critics of the agree with me.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I am not talking young women. I am talking girls.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Would you marry a girl of the age of 14 if it was legal?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
paper only.......as if trees didn't make paper 5 years later?
As if the future dynasty couldn't have consisted of all adult women...since, it was, ya know, supposedly a future dynasty?
girls of 14 were not even marriage eligible anyway.......their menses had not even started at that age.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
yes, I have read that.
that could be as simple as being to proud to be a coward.
either way, he was not all the decent guy you people want to portray him as.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
ha.....I like how everyone always seems to think that I get my ideals from outside sources.
Like I don't have brain enough to do my own research.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 What are you talking about???? Helen's Mother agreed, of course there parents knew about the sealing.
Be careful, there are late anti-mormon, 19th century forgeries also.
"Joseph could have done the right thing OF THAT TIME PERIOD."
Speculation, without a shred of evidence.
With that logic, I can accuse everyone of anything.
Evidence please, or stop this nonsense please.
Yet the evidence points to a dynastic marriage.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I gave you evidence.......read Laura Ingalls Wilder for a look at the etiquette of that time
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Why isn't your present day prophet lining up his dynasty with 14 year old children?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
oh, yeah, history revisionism again....
Helens Mother agreed because if they didn't know, and Helen was told to not tell her parents....it would, well, you know, put old Smith in a bad light....and you are all about protecting his reputation.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
When will you learn that most of what I may read anti mormon, I take what I read and go to your official writings to see if it says that or used to say it in your writings.....mostly, it is spot on.
Don't worry....it is not just mormons.......like Catholics, they claim to not worship Mary, but they pray to her. And, children of God who claim that they don't believe this or that, but it is in their writings.
same with LDS
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
You can point out what exactly in detail is backwards thinking and I will search the scriptures and repent.
Don't claim something without being specific.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71 Obviously angelcollector22 doesn't know anything.
She just talks bad about our church, without even knowing what she is talking about.
Why are we wasting our time with her anyways??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
Does love they neighbor mean to never disagree?
Don't think so.....Jesus was the ultimate expression of love, yet, he toppled the money changer tables in the temple.
I am not concerned that myself speaking out against false teaching is against my Lord.
Of course, like all of us, I have to tame my tongue and work on being gracious and loving.
But, one thing I won't do is shy away from bringing to light false teaching.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
Look I vaguely know much about the Tanners, and Ed Decker I know nothing about, except what little you have mentioned.....
What makes you think that I need to voices of others to know that the LDS church has changed the real Jesus to a lie.
And, also, you are giving too much power to two individuals.
We need no Tanners or Deckers to figure things out.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
No, LDS, if you read the writings of Laura Ingalls Wilder of the same time period....her writings were real happenings and she had no reason to revise history and she didn't have a religious following to deceive....her writings talk about being horrified in the VERY few instances of marriage, and that was usually 16, not 14....and her writings talk about how most parents made the children wait until 18.
And, in the area of science...in that time period, menses hadn't even started
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 What are you talking about?? What in the world does Laura Ingalls Wilder have to do with Helen?? Wasn't she born in 1867???
Did Laura say that JS had sex with Helen??
Did Laura say that she got sealed without her parents knowing??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
Laura (whose parents would have been Smiths age) wrote about how unacceptable marriage to a young girl was in the 18th century.
Lauras parents made Laura wait until age 18 because that was pretty much the acceptable age.
Lauras parents were Smiths generation.
Therefore, when you say that child marriage was acceptable, it was not.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 "Laura (whose parents would have been Smiths age) wrote about how unacceptable marriage to a young girl was in the 18th century."
Well that goes against historical evidence, data, and information, even critics of the church would agree with me.
Maybe it was not acceptable for 11 year olds, or younger.
I am sorry, but you are lying, go ask any historian, do the real research in any website, about this.
Just ask any historian, its your homework
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
would you marry a 14 year old?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
ummm, I read all the Laura Ingalls Wilder books several times and I am not lying
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
again.....you put too much power onto the Tanners....
as if, they are the only ones who questioned your doctrine and they are the only ones who can make sense of the lies.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71 2 Samuel 12:7-8:
"Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives"
Atrocities:
"Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (NIV)"
We believe in the Bible "as far as its translated correctly"
But I wonder if angelcollector22 believes that God was once cruel??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I know exactly what skeptics like to point out in the OT....
Your LDS God condones church leaders marrying children.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
Please point out to me which part of the Bible I have not read and I will gladly get it done this week.
You assign me bible reading.
I love nothing else than to be reading the Bible
angelcollector22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LDS4Life71 angelcollector22 will never learn, she thinks that Mormons are going to burn in hell forever, if we don't leave Mormonism.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
"Isaiah 4:1 "
yeah,,,, I can see where the verse says that seven women will be sealed in marriage to one man...I can see in that verse where polygamy is okay....I can see in that verse where God has said "I command men to take multiple wives during the millenium".......sure, sure...........
Yup, thats what it says.
Yeah
yup
wow
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Of course JS did NOT have sex with Helen!!!
Historian Todd Compton: "The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage "
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
sure......so you Mr skeptic....with your rational mind and all can disbelieve most of what is reality......but, when it comes to a man my age sealing himself in marriage to a 14 year old...your rational mind just accepts that the 14 year old would not be toyed with until she reached of age?
Oh, rational one......if Henry Monson sealed himself to a 14 year old child, you would sing his praises?
Your rational mind is on the fritz
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
so, the dynastic marriage to Helen Mar Kimball could not be done, say, 5 years later?
and....why not, rational one?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 With all respect ma'am, PLEASE stop being a hypocrite and read the atrocities in the OT
I know what the reality is, and you have ZERO historical evidences for your accusation against JS. Even if he would have had sex with her, it would have been okay, since she was his wife, and it was the 19th century.
However, all the historical evidences point that JS did NOT have sex with Helen, you don't even have DNA evidence of ancestry. Accusations require evidence.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
so, okay, you are saying that if they had sex, that would be okay.
So, if it was not a big deal, then why was Helen told to keep it from her parents.
From just experience we all know that if a child that young is told to keep something from their parents, especially in the area of the opposite sex, then we have a young child in danger and that child needs to be protected.
Are you condoning Smith marrying a child bride?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Why this, why that, is NOT evidence. Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged"
“The prophet’s marriage to her seems to have been largely dynastic—a union arranged by Joseph and Heber to seal the Kimball family to a seer, church president, and presiding patriarchal figure of the dispensation of the fullness of times" (Compton 1997, p. 486)
Helen's parents were aware, but plural marriage was kept secret for protection.
Too much anti-Mormon prejudice danger.
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
again, Joseph could have done the right thing OF THAT TIME PERIOD......ASK for her hand in marriage from the parents, wait until 18 as most did, and NOT ask her to withold this info from her parents....
His dynasty for a 14 year old could have and SHOULD have waited until she was older.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 "Joseph could have done the right thing OF THAT TIME PERIOD."
LOL that's a fallacy, you can prove anything with that LOL
Moses could have also have fun with many women.
I WANT EVIDENCE, NOT YOUR SPECULATION, and yet you ignore the evidence.
Again, it was the 19 the century, it was okay for a women to marry as a teenager.
Please stop judging so much, and stop being a hypocrite, I have debated anti-Mormons that know far more than you, so why are you wasting your time??
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
again, no....in the 19th century, it was across the board expected that you ask for a daughters hand in marriage from the parents (not sneak the marriage) and most girls waited until 18, and if it was earlier, it was 16 and that was unusual.
Your church is trying to teach you that is how it was done....it was not done that way.
This is why most of the back to etiquette and class parents of today want to go back to the ways of the 19th century because we have lost the art of courting, etc
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
"The fundamental principles"
There are WAY more fundamentals of your religion than what you just quoted.
In fact what you quoted is closer to wrapping up the beliefs of us evangelicals than it is wrapping up the LDS doctrine.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 I have evidence that JS motives where NOT lustful.
* It was okay in the 19th century for a women to marry as a teenager, yes even a 14 year old.
* But all the evidences point that JS did NOT have sex with Helen (14 yr old)
* He got sealed to them, but their is no shred of evidence that JS had sex with women already married, even DNA evidence refutes accusations against JS,
Please stop being a hypocrite and read the atrocities in the OT
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
and so there are some fine opinions written in history of some not so fine people....
there are people that thought that Stalin was above reproach.
You are only accepting of what is only said good of a man who lived close to 200 years ago and throwing out what may sway your faith in him.....thats called history revisionism, sir......and it is not being truthful to yourself or anyone else in the long run
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
You can think Abe Lincoln still roams the white house all you want....good for you!
Guess he didn't even make it to the Mormon spirit prison......
Whatever.
And, you can vouch for Joseph Smith, why? You were there? You saw that he was upfront and honest with every wife...he didn't hide marriages? he didn't marry the pregnant wife of another man? You were there?
Are you packin a time travel machine?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
That verse in Isaiah is way out of context and you LDS are pretty good at twisting verses when you want to.
Tell me why you can twist such a meaning and yet have such a hard time with Isaiah 43:10?
You twist things in the Bible like a pretzel and ignore the rest.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
Bible: "DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go." -- infidels org
"archaeological excavations do not support the Biblical Exodus story" -- The Skeptic Society
w w w skeptic com/eskeptic/04-04-05/
THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY is a scientific and educational organization
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71 non-Mormon church historian Ernst Benz wrote:
" Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it exhibits a very great measure of selflessness, a willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of duty"
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
So, because YOU say Smith was honest.....and you exist almost 200 years after he was alive and didn't even know him....its okay for you to take the stand that he was honest...but, its not okay for other people to believe he was a con man?
what makes you so special?
You speak as if you know him personally......do you know Abe Lincoln personally too? Can you vouch for him as well?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 non-Mormon church historian Ernst Benz wrote:" Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it exhibits a very great measure of selflessness, a willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of duty"
But how about the Old Testament??
DT 21:10-13
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I am not here to debate if one should be a polygamist or not....
but, either way, I am sure that a leader of a church should not lie to his other wives about it.
If he lies and deceives, I am pretty sure that makes him a liar and a deceiver.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 I can prove with historical evidence that JS was sincere
What ever, just keep your anti-mormon nonsense out of public, and stop calling my church ridiculus and read the Bible, please
"DT 25:5-9 A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders"
"EZ 37:1-10 Dry bones come alive"
"EZ 37:1-10 Dry bones come alive."
"AM 8:9 The Sun will be made to set at noon in "clear day.""
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I actually don't believe that most of polygamists today are in it for the sexual debauchery....I think they are trying to live the Mormon doctrine.
I do think that the founder of your religion was in it for the sexual debauchery....otherwise, why the secrecy and marrying other mens wives while they were out of town? why keep some wives from his first wife? and why EVER for ANY REASON in everything that is good and pure EVER would he have to be sealed to a 14 YEAR OLD????
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 I have evidence that JS motives where NOT lustful.
It was okay in the 19th century for a women to marry as a teenager, yes even a 14 year old.
But all the evidences points that JS did NOT have sex with Helen (14 yr old)
He got sealed to them, but their is no shred of evidence that JS had sex with women already married, even DNA evidence refutes accusations against JS,
Please stop being a hypocrite and read the Bible :)
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticChristian
"It was okay in the 19th century for a women to marry as a teenager, yes even a 14 year old."
I have been through this......it was NOT okay, not unheard of, but NOT okay......and certainly would not have been okay with Helens parents which is WHY Smith told her to KEEP IT FROM HER PARENTS
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
I am not going to debate if he had sex with Helen (of course he did...gee).....but, you explain to me WHY he would need to be sealed to a 14 year old in the first place???????
as in..."purpose being".................?
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Of course JS did NOT have sex with Helen!!!
Historian Todd Compton: "The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage "
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@LDS4Life71
I know where I will be in the millenium lol
You seem to think I don't read my Bible.
angelcollector22 4 months ago
@angelcollector22 Stop making fun of us
Bible: "DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go." -- infidels org
"archaeological excavations do not support the Biblical Exodus story" - The Skeptic Society
w w w skeptic com/eskeptic/04-04-05/
THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY is a scientific and educational organization
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago
@TheSkepticChristian
yeah yeah, skeptic...
I don't care if you ARE skeptic of everything but the god complex delusion.
I am not here to convince you of anything