JOEL WROTE:
Just so you know, Joseph dictated most of it to various scribes, primarily Oliver Cowdery, but also his wife Emma and Martin Harris. Because it was being dictated, no punctuation was included in the transcript. That had to be added after the fact. Some changes to the first edition were made to correct errors that crept in during type-setting. Any changes to the first edition that have ever been made have been made to bring the book closer to original handwritten transcript.

END QUOTE

Why didnt they reference handwritten journal for punctuation? why dictate if it was handwritten?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Sorry.

What I'm saying is that as Joseph translated, his various scribes would copy down what he said by hand. I guess for the sake of speed (they translated a 530 page book in roughly 30 days) the scribes left out punctuation.

The chief scribe spent a lot of time at the EB Grandin print shop helping to set the type and correct the punctuation. As far as I know, grammar was never the issue. Having never done any typesetting before, some mistakes crept in during that tedious and laborious process.

I apologize for not being able to respond to your posts in a timely way. I am very busy trying to finish up the year-end paperwork for 3 Corporations, and so for the next few months, I may not post for a few days or more, at a time.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just so you know, Joseph dictated most of it to various scribes, primarily Oliver Cowdery, but also his wife Emma and Martin Harris. Because it was being dictated, no punctuation was included in the transcript. That had to be added after the fact. Some changes to the first edition were made to correct errors that crept in during type-setting. Any changes to the first edition that have ever been made have been made to bring the book closer to original handwritten transcript.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think this is a reasonable answer. Considering God's "supposed" word is a stake, things ought to be done with the utmost care and attention, which has not been the case with the BOM. There is close to 4000 changes. When handling somthing as important as God's word, nothing but utmost care and attention would suffice.

The BOM is supposed to be an "original".
You keep saying that the Bible has errors, but the Bible we have today, is NOT an original.

.

I don't think it matters if it's reasonable when it is factual.

Look at the changes that have been made, in every case they have been to make the book closer to the original transcript.

Other changes are corrections in spelling as spelling was not standardized at the time (read any old document without spelling corrections and you're likely to see some major differences).

Major changes include breaking the book up by chapter and verse to make it a little easier to cite and reference as well as more accessible. But that doesn't change the text at all.

The fact is you have yet to show me a change.

The other fact is you are holding the Book of Mormon to a standard you don't hold the Bible to in terms of exactness and lack of change. If changes equal falsehood, then the Bible is similarly false.

More info can be found here http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

Even I found it to be an interesting read.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The fact is you have yet to show me a change.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You *do* agree there have been changes tho, eh? (I believe I read it right where you say there were changes.)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The other fact is you are holding the Book of Mormon to a standard you don't hold the Bible to in terms of exactness and lack of change. If changes equal falsehood, then the Bible is similarly false.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The same/reverse could be said of you as well... you state when Bible versions such as the NIV are written that the changes build in errors. Writing text using the king james language doesn't make it more godly or accurate - not anymore than re-writing it in greek or hebrew.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think it matters if it's reasonable when it is factual. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If it has that many errors, it is not factual.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fact is you have yet to show me a change.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know there are changes and I know there are changes. For me, it does not matter what the changes are but that fact that there are changes.
"Originals" of God's word are perfect, not subject to changes. The originals of the Bible are perfect, why do you think everyone is trying to translate from the originals.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The other fact is you are holding the Book of Mormon to a standard you don't hold the Bible to in terms of exactness and lack of change. If changes equal falsehood, then the Bible is similarly false.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On the contrary. I believe the Bible is inerrant.
Therefore, if I were to believe in the BOM, it would have to be inerrant as well. It is not.

So I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

No you are exercising a double standard.

You say the Book of Mormon has thousands of changes from the Original. When in fact, the changes that have been made have been done so to bring it closer to the original.

I say the Bible has thousands of changes and no one has the originals to check things over with.

The point is that at any point when a work of God passes into the hands of man, error enters into the picture.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You *do* agree there have been changes tho, eh? (I believe I read it right where you say there were changes.)
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, I do, however in the current edition, it is closer to the original transcript than the first edition.

Echo, makes claims without knowing any facts, she makes these claims because her anti-Mormon mentors, tell her that this is the case. Research it and you'll come to a different conclusion.

Read this: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

And you'll see what I mean.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The same/reverse could be said of you as well... you state when Bible versions such as the NIV are written that the changes build in errors.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're wrong here, because I don't reject the Bible as a whole, Echo is saying that a comma adjusted in the Book of Mormon to bring it in line with the original manuscript, makes the whole thing false. I simply say that it is impossible to come to an accurate understanding of the Bible due to the changes, without reading it with the Holy Spirit as your guide to reveal hidden truths directly to your heart and mind.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe the Bible is inerrant.
Therefore, if I were to believe in the BOM, it would have to be inerrant as well. It is not.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This statement is inaccurate as I believe the Bible to be true at the same time as believing it contains error.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Writing text using the king james language doesn't make it more godly or accurate - not anymore than re-writing it in greek or hebrew.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't make this contention nor does any Mormon that I know.

Can you imagine anyone saying with a straight face "Well it sounds like the Bible so it has to be true." That's idiotic.

The Book of Mormon being written in KJV english is merely a reflection of the period of time in which it was translated.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You *do* agree there have been changes tho, eh? (I believe I read it right where you say there were changes.) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, maybe i should rephrase. Show me a change that substantively moves the Book of Mormon further away from the originals in meaning and text. There isn't one.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You say the Book of Mormon has thousands of changes from the Original. When in fact, the changes that have been made have been done so to bring it closer to the original. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why not just publish the original then?


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I say the Bible has thousands of changes and no one has the originals to check things over with.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We have God's promise that his word will be preserved. That is good enough for me.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Echo, makes claims without knowing any facts, she makes these claims because her anti-Mormon mentors</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody is anti-Mormon Joel, we oppose LDS doctrine and teaching because it destroys the souls of those who believe in it. So that means we are FOR Mormons!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Echo is saying that a comma adjusted in the Book of Mormon to bring it in line with the original manuscript, makes the whole thing false. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said that. The fact is words have been added or subtracted as you well know Joel.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can you imagine anyone saying with a straight face "Well it sounds like the Bible so it has to be true." That's idiotic.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No offense intended Joel but, well what about saying "well if feels like the Bible so it has to be true"? Which is what Mormonism teaches you to do. No difference. The burning in the bosom is just a feeling. If the book sounds like the Bible, that is a feeling as well.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, maybe i should rephrase. Show me a change that substantively moves the Book of Mormon further away from the originals in meaning and text. There isn't one.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I say lets skip the Book of Mormon and publish the original. Problem solved.

.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why not just publish the original then?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you would read the link I posted, you'd see that even the original print edition contained many mistakes. The original transcript was mostly destroyed a few years back and all that remains is the printer's transcript.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We have God's promise that his word will be preserved. That is good enough for me.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be great if those verses were ever referring to the Bible, but they aren't.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody is anti-Mormon Joel, we oppose LDS doctrine and teaching because it destroys the souls of those who believe in it. So that means we are FOR Mormons!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fact that you haven't read the posted link shows me that you aren't sincere in your "desire to understand". To me that means your research is shoddy and you're willing to accept half-truths and lies. That doesn't make you "for-mormons" it makes you lazy at best and anti-mormon at worst. Without a doubt those who feed you the lies are anti-Mormon.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said that. The fact is words have been added or subtracted as you well know Joel.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">show me. But first read the link I've posted above so that you don't make a fool of yourself.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No offense intended Joel but, well what about saying "well if feels like the Bible so it has to be true"? Which is what Mormonism teaches you to do. No difference. The burning in the bosom is just a feeling. If the book sounds like the Bible, that is a feeling as well.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Mormonism teaches you to do is to pray and ask God if it is true, after you've read it and studied it out in your own mind. God will answer prayers by the power of the Holy Ghost, what that feels like has never been a "burning in the bosom" (a phrase I've always found silly) to me. No one says, "if it feels like the Bible" as I've told you, there is no need to appeal to the Bible when God has promised that we can appeal to him.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I say lets skip the Book of Mormon and publish the original. Problem solved.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Read the posted link. Quit pretending like you want to understand better, when your not even willing to read a simple web page.

Let me add, Joseph Smith stated that the "“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” Note, he didn't say perfect, he said "most correct." The Book of Mormon itself says on the title page, written by Mormon - a Book of Mormon prophet - "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Echo, condemn not the things of God because of the mistakes of men.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SenorElMouse:
The name of the episode is called Jesus and the Super Best Friends. It's not available for shareware or even freeware. However, if you PM me your address I can burn it onto a CD and mail it to you. It's episode like 503 or something. If I'm remembering correctly, that's also the one where David Blane the magician tries to take over the world and creates a cult or something. Anyways, just give me your address and I'll ship to you. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">thanks anyways, found it online here:

(text) http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/southpark/season5/southpark-503.htm

here:

(Depictions of Muhammed throughout the years) http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/

here:

(actual video)
http://www.scientomogy.com/south_park_scientology.php

Oprah did a good show on polygamy...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be great if those verses were ever referring to the Bible, but they aren't.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree. You have been taught otherwise and you believe it without questioning whether or not what you have been taught is a lie or not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fact that you haven't read the posted link shows me that you aren't sincere in your "desire to understand". To me that means your research is shoddy and you're willing to accept half-truths and lies</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, you are wrong again. I went into the link and came across this:

"This work is solely the responsibility of Jeff Lindsay and is not an official source LDS doctrine."

I prefer to stick to official LDS sources and doctrine. Jeff Lindsay is one Mormon. He is not necessarily right about what he says, as is apparent by his disclaimer. And, if I were to find something wrong in that sight, the LDS would just say he was wrong, just like you have done for other LDS people I have quoted. So, it is pointless, as you have shown me yourself.

So, in order for me to keep from shoddy research and believing half truths and lie's, I like to stick to LDS official sources and doctrine as much as possible. And steer clear of sources that may not necessarily be correct, such as the Jeff Lindsay site.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Mormonism teaches you to do is to pray and ask God if it is true, after you've read it and studied it out in your own mind. God will answer prayers by the power of the Holy Ghost, what that feels like has never been a "burning in the bosom" (a phrase I've always found silly) to me. No one says, "if it feels like the Bible" as I've told you, there is no need to appeal to the Bible when God has promised that we can appeal to him.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If there is no need to appeal to the Bible, you have missed the mark. For appealing to the Bible, is appealing to him. It is his word!
Proverbs 14:2 says "There is a way that SEEMS RIGHT to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
Joel, there are many ways that seem right to us, and the only way to avoid this pitfall that can destroy our souls, is to have something objective and unchanging that will shape our feelings and change our minds about what we feel seems right!
The Bible is that objective and unchanging truth.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, even over and above the Bible. Grave, grave error. This is setting aside God's true and preserved word in favor of new doctrine, new teaching, a new gospel, a different Jesus. And a salvation that does not save but instead deceives people into going to outer darkness.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Echo, condemn not the things of God because of the mistakes of men.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joel, condemn not the things of God because of the mistakes of men! For this is precisely what you are doing. You condemn the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon being the most correct. To even say the BOM is "more correct" is condemning the mistakes of men you say exist in the Bible.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have been taught otherwise and you believe it without questioning whether or not what you have been taught is a lie or not.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm pretty sure it's you who is refusing to look at the context of those verses and consider their actual application as being specific rather than applying them to an as yet uncompiled book.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, in order for me to keep from shoddy research and believing half truths and lie's, I like to stick to LDS official sources and doctrine as much as possible. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fortunately, the LDS church has much better things to do than defend itself from baseless attacks from bitter anti-Mormons. You'll note on the Official lds websites that there is no point by point rebuttal of anti-Mormon claims. Regardless the efforts of anti-Mormons, the Church continues to roll forth, until like the stone cut out of the mountain without hands in Daniel, it will fill the whole earth.

Good Luck stopping us.

The point is, the best you'll get are self-proclaimed Mormon apologists. You should however note that Lindsay does site several articles from official church publications in his overview of changes made to the Book of Mormon.

Proverbs 14:2 doesn't say that.

It says </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Those who follow the right path fear the LORD; those who take the wrong path despise him.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust


NKJV - Pro 14:2 - He who walks in his uprightness fears the Lord, But he who is perverse in his ways despises Him.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson


NASB - Pro 14:2 - He who walks in his uprightness fears the LORD, But he who is devious in his ways despises Him.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation


RSV - Pro 14:2 - He who walks in uprightness fears the LORD, but he who is devious in his ways despises him.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.


Webster - Pro 14:2 - He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the LORD: but [he that is] perverse in his ways despiseth him.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info


Young - Pro 14:2 - Whoso is walking in his uprightness is fearing Jehovah, And the perverted [in] his ways is despising Him.
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info


Darby - Pro 14:2 - He that walketh in his uprightness feareth Jehovah; but he that is perverted in his ways despiseth him.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info


ASV - Pro 14:2 - He that walketh in his uprightness feareth Jehovah; But he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him.
American Standard Version 1901 Info


HNV - Pro 14:2 - He who walks in his uprightness fears the LORD, But he who is perverse in his ways despises him.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What are you trying to pull?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, even over and above the Bible. Grave, grave error. This is setting aside God's true and preserved word in favor of new doctrine, new teaching, a new gospel, a different Jesus. And a salvation that does not save but instead deceives people into going to outer darkness.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And I would say you make the grave grave error of limiting God in his ability to make contact with his children.

Lay aside your Bible for one moment and consider this.

Does it make sense that a loving God would only send Prophets and Apostles to people living in a limited geographic region?

Does it make sense that at a time when the world was already widely populated, that God would ignore the bulk of the world in favor of one small area?

Does it make sense to say that it's because Israel was the chosen people, God ignored everyone else? Especially considering that the NT takes place after Israel has been scattered to the four corners of the earth? Why ignore 10 tribes of his chosen people?

Does it make sense that God would send prophets to all his children, rather than leave them in darkness and condemn them to Hell?

This is all that has happened with the Book of Mormon coming into existence. God loves all his children. As such, he is unwilling to leave them in darkness. He not only sends prophets to those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin but also to the lost tribes that have been scattered throughout the world.

The Book of Mormon really doesn't contradict the Bible. If you would read it, you would see that.

The Book of Mormon is evidence of God's love for all people who lived at that period of History.

Did you know that Mormons believe there are potentially more scriptures out there, waiting to be discovered to the benefit and salvation of mankind? We believe this because even the addition of Book of Mormon lands to the Biblical account of God's dealing with his children is a far to narrow spectrum of people for a loving God to have dealt with.


WE believe that if God loves you he will speak to you. I'm not talking about today, but I'm talking about the period of time with the NT was written. God did not just love the Jews. He loved everyone, more specifically he loved the scattered tribes of Israel that had been scattered to the four corners of the earth. They are all his chosen people, not just Judah and as such all deserve the right to have the gospel preached among them. ONe can only hope that if God imparted wisdom and knowledge to them that someone wrote it down so that eventually it will be to our benefit.

I think it is a grave, grave error to elevate the Bible above God and his ability to deal with his Children directly.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joel, condemn not the things of God because of the mistakes of men! For this is precisely what you are doing. You condemn the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon being the most correct. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't condemn the Bible, I never have. I read from the Bible every day and I love the Bible. While I do believe the Book of Mormon to be more correct that does not mean I believe it's doctrines to be more correct, because I believe the doctrines preached in both books to be the same. More correct for me simply means that fewer mistakes have crept into the document since it fell into the hands of men.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm pretty sure it's you who is refusing to look at the context of those verses and consider their actual application as being specific rather than applying them to an as yet uncompiled book.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God doesn't change his mind Joel. What was said by him before the completion of his word still stands after the completion of his word. God keeps his word and it stands forever.

Just like Jesus said Mathew 24:35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away"

But you choose not to believe Jesus and believe that some of his words have passed away.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proverbs 14:2 doesn't say that</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What are you trying to pull?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry, my mistake, it was a typo. I typed Proverbs 14:2, it should have been proverbs 14:12

"12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." NIV

"12There's a way of life that looks harmless enough;look again--it leads straight to hell."MSG

Clearly, some of the thoughts, ways and feelings of man seem harmless or innocent but it leads straight to HELL. So Joel, the burning in the bosom is a most unreliable thing to depend on. It seems harmless but in reality, it is deadly!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And I would say you make the grave  error of limiting God in his ability to make contact with his children.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God makes contact with us Joel, but we know how to recognize that from reading his word so that we will not be led astray by Satan and his demons. You on the other hand are wide open to Satan and his demons because you expect God to work outside his word and even do not question something that is contrary to the word!!!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lay aside your Bible for one moment and consider this</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can't do that Joel. Jesus used the OT to fight EVERY battle and temptation of the devil. By your proposal alone you show that Satan is now working through you to lead me away from the very weapon God gave me to battle against Satan.
I will not do it. God gave me his word in the Bible for my protection and I will not set it aside.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does it make sense that a loving God would only send Prophets and Apostles to people living in a limited geographic region? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">NO, that is why he appointed the 12 to go into all the world. Mark 16:15 "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation"

The idea is not to send Prophets in the LDS sense , because all of us are now prophets, prophets who carry the message of the gospel to the world. For a prophet is one who faithfully proclaims God's word as it has been now revealed. Now that Jesus has come and all truth for our life and godliness has now been revealed, there is no more need for prophets such as in the OT. For everything has now been revealed!

Hebrews 1:1,2 "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe."

What does the verse above say Joel? It says IN THE PAST God spoke through the prophets in various ways, he NO LONGER DOES THIS. Because everything God ever wanted to say is now said and done in Jesus.
But, you do not believe God.

Romans 16:25,26 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:"


Here too, everything is NOW REVEALED, MADE KNOWN. There is no more to be revealed!

Mathew 7:22-23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not PROPHESIED in thy name?...And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY"

The way the Mormon church prophesies is iniquity.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does it make sense that at a time when the world was already widely populated, that God would ignore the bulk of the world in favor of one small area?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God did not ignore anyone, he told the apostles to go into all the world. Note, he did not say he himself would go into all the world as the Mormons proclaim.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does it make sense that at a time when the world was already widely populated, that God would ignore the bulk of the world in favor of one small area?

Does it make sense to say that it's because Israel was the chosen people, God ignored everyone else? Especially considering that the NT takes place after Israel has been scattered to the four corners of the earth? Why ignore 10 tribes of his chosen people?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does it make sense that your church teaches you to ignore God's word for in it, he appointed the twelve to go into all the world.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does it make sense that God would send prophets to all his children, rather than leave them in darkness and condemn them to Hell?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He does send prophets to all his children. But not LDS prophets, true prophets proclaim the already revealed word of God in the Bible.
They share that message with the world. But the world rejects the true prophets and close their ears to what the prophets have to say.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Book of Mormon really doesn't contradict the Bible. If you would read it, you would see that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not only does the BOM contradict the Bible it is in very opposition to the Bible. This should be very clear to you Joel by now. Those of us who hold to the Bible alone, have very different beliefs than those who don't hold to it. The reason the BOM does not contradict the Bible for you is because the BOM dictates what the Bible means, instead of the other way around. We see the difference but you don't, that is because you have been led to believe in something that seems harmless, seems right, but like proverbs
14:12 ""12There's a way of life that looks harmless enough;look again--it leads straight to hell."MSG

This is why Christians are passionate about Mormons! They don't want them going to Hell! But Mormons are taught that we are Mormon haters, anti-Mormon, Mormon bashers! So that when Mormons believe this lie about us, Mormons won't open their ears and listen. Satan has got you good. It is the perfect trap to keep people from hearing the truth. Joel, open your ears!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did you know that Mormons believe there are potentially more scriptures out there, waiting to be discovered to the benefit and salvation of mankind? We believe this because even the addition of Book of Mormon lands to the Biblical account of God's dealing with his children is a far to narrow spectrum of people for a loving God to have dealt with.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did you know that this contradicts scripture?
2 Peter 1:3 "3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness."
Scripture says we ALREADY have everything we need for our life and for godliness!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it is a grave, grave error to elevate the Bible above God and his ability to deal with his Children directly</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God deals with us directly but we cannot recognize it unless we hear and know his word first. We must know him from his word, in order to recognize him in our lives.
On the other hand, Mormons are taught to place the BOM,present day prophets and a burning in the bosom over and above the Bible! And as a result, everything they believe is contrary to the Bible. By not elevating the Bible, Satan has deceived Mormons into doing his will so that he (Satan) can work directly in their lives.

You've missed the point and I'm not surprised.

I agree with you about God telling the 12 to go into all the world. I agree completely.

I am however, at a loss as to how they were supposed to accomplish that without modern modes of travel.

I realize Paul traveled quite widely, and that there is some tradition that he even made it to the British Isles.

I also realize that in today's world it is easy for their message to be spread. However, where you're missing the point is that, according to you, a loving God is ignoring all the people who lived at the same time as the 12 and were in no way ever accessible by the 12. So I'll ask again, would God ignore them or send prophets among them?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On the other hand, Mormons are taught to place the BOM,present day prophets and a burning in the bosom over and above the Bible! And as a result, everything they believe is contrary to the Bible. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not true, we are in fact taught to use the Book of Mormon and the Bible together. In fact this year if you walk into any Mormon church in the world and go to a Sunday School class, they will be teaching from the Old Testament. Next year 2007 they will be teaching from the New Testament. in 2008 we'll hit the Book of Mormon. In 2009 it's church history and the Doctrine and Covenants. So you see in essence the Bible gets twice as much face time in the LDS church as the Book of Mormon.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But you choose not to believe Jesus and believe that some of his words have passed away.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe Jesus completely and I do not believe his words have passed away. May I remind you, I wholeheartedly believe and accept the word of God. I simply believe also that any work of God that passes into the hands of man is prone to pick up some errors. I've never intended to imply that I reject the Bible. As I've said before, I'd reckon it's about 98% accurate. I don't believe that it includes every book or letter written by ancient Apostles and Prophets that may be of value, but it certainly includes enough to point mankind to salvation.

You have to remember that the Book of Mormon is not a new book but a contemporary of the Bible. It spans the period of time from 600 BC to 420-ish AD. It's about God's dealings with people in the America's (a place that was completely inaccessible to the 12, who were commissioned to go into all the world). It doesn't replace the Bible or take away from the Bible. The only reason it can be deemed most correct is that it has passed through fewer iterations than the Bible.

Can I ask you again if I've ever said anything to lead you to believe that I'm talking about a "burning in my bosom"? I don't even really know what that means. God has revealed himself to me in far more concrete ways than that.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By not elevating the Bible, Satan has deceived Mormons into doing his will so that he (Satan) can work directly in their lives.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By elevating the Bible above God, Satan has deceived Christians into practicing Idolatry.

The Bible is not and never will be powerful enough to constrain the actions of God. It is a compilation of earthly writings inspired by God. So is the Book of Mormon for that matter.

If you reply to anything from this post please reply to this...

Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

Really now, the Book of Mormon is the biggest fairy tale EVER. Golden plates? Moroni the angel? Sacred pebbles? C'mon, please.. Joseph Smith was nothing more than a charismatic womanizer who invented revelations about polygamy so he could boink every nubile young women that tickled his fancy..
READ MORE..

I'm sorry VTevaD, I can't read your site, when I click on the link, my computer blocks it based on content. It only does that for Provocative frontal nudity, Explicit sexual activity, and Wanton and gratuitous violence.

If that's the kind of site you regularly visit, then I suppose Polygamy would be your kind of thing, not that you would be opposed to it.

So the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale? Interesting thought. Care to elaborate on how anything contained in the Book of Mormon could be considered any more fanciful than anything contained in the Bible?

Echo, it's people like this that your mild anti-Mormonism ends up filling with hate and prejudice against Mormons. That's why it's wrong, it engenders prejudice and hatred.

It is the fundamentalists who practice polygamy that bug me. Because this is recent history unlike other religions which originated thousands of years ago is that we have more info about the man. Joseph Smith was a sexual predator who used supposed "revelations" from God to rape young women - he was tarred and feathered for it on one occasion and ultimately killed by a mob for having sex with a child.

Allow me to cut&Paste:
++++++++
There's two ways to look at Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church. On the one hand you can view him as a fraud -- a monomaniacal polygamist, an opportunist who shamelessly exploited his religious followers, who was murdered by an angry mob, infuriated by all his bullchit. On the other hand, you could be a Mormon. In which case, he's the greatest man who ever lived. Your call.
One morning in 1820, fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith, Jr. had a problem: he needed to know which religion was right. So he went into the woods and prayed for guidance. Then Jesus and His Dad appeared and gave Smith some unbelievable news:


Every church on earth was offensive to the Lord. All of them had ignored His teachings and commandments... or something like that. Therefore, Smith should join none of them.

Smith was instructed to institute a new religion, restoring God's teachings. It would be the one true church.
Smith told no one about the vision, and nothing happened for three years.

Then he received another visitation, this time from an angel named Moroni. Sort of like the holographic schematics of the Death Star shown to the Rebel pilots during their briefing, Moroni showed Smith a cavity hidden inside a mountain, conveniently located just outside his hometown. (What a coincidence.) In the cave was a room with wooden furnishings, with a bunch of gold tablets stacked up on the table. Then the angel told him not to go near the site until he received specific orders to do so. So Smith never told anybody about that vision either.

Another four years passed, and then he finally got the go-ahead to grab the gold tablets. He also picked up two magical rocks which were made famous in the Old Testament: the Urim and Thummim. With those stones -- and a lucky brown rock he found at the bottom of a well -- he set out to transcribe the mysterious markings on the plates.

The resulting divine scripture was the account of the lost tribe of Israel, which had sailed from Canaan across the seas to North America around 2250 B.C. They were met by an exotic land, full of elephants and horses and other things that don't make any sense.

Anyway, these transplanted Hebrews established a vast civilization and were even visited by Jesus, who established a ministry there. This work, a 275,000-word tome entitled The Book of Mormon, provided the foundation for the LDS faith. After the book was translated, the angel came and repossessed the gold plates, which is why they haven't been exhibited in a museum someplace.

The church grew rapidly. And why not? It contained the perfect American theology. For one thing, it proved that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was divinely-inspired. America was the chosen land. And, of course, it was represented as the church to supplant all others, the One True Faith. So it was the new and improved Christian religion.

Best of all, its prophet was a U.S. citizen, embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great. He wasn't content to be the Prometheus who brought the world the one true way. He had to claim credit and ownership. The first edition of The Book of Mormon bore the following on its title page:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUNIOR,
AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, he wasn't just the day manager. Smith adopted the official title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, claiming he literally spoke for God. Just like the Pope, except he was a U.S. citizen.

According to the church, God even endorsed the cornerstone of American society, despite its controversial status around the world. That being the centuries-old institution of involuntary servitude. As Joseph Smith, God's mouthpiece, wrote in April 1836:


The fact is inconvertible, that the first mention we have of slavery, is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God.
And so far from that prediction being averse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument to the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! "And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

. . . The curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan . . . those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn when perhaps too late, for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not directed by His Counsel.

The Scripture stands for itself; and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the Abolitionists in the world.

As prophet, Smith yielded an incessant stream of revelations and divine judgments. God told the Mormons that a man could enter Heaven only by way of plural marriage (aka polygamy). Smith himself had at least 28 wives. But the government hounded them over this, and they were forced to deny it. God also told them to pool all their money and form a Mormon bank. It failed shortly thereafter.

Years after William Miller started predicting that Jesus would be back Real Soon Now, Smith revealed a similar prophecy in February 1835. Except that Smith's was not exactly what you would call specific. When Joseph nagged God about the timing of Christ's return, the Creator answered with clear annoyance:


I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble Me no more on this matter.
I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

Surprisingly, God appeared to be uncertain whether Joseph would live to be 85. You would think that if anyone could predict when somebody is going to die, it would be the Almighty. Of course, in the end God was correct to hedge His bet.

It all ended nine years later in an Illinois jail. Before he surrendered to custody in June 1844, Smith made a little speech to his Mormon brethren:


"I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer's morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall be said of me -- he was murdered in cold blood."
Or at least, that's what the Mormons say. It seems pretty **** unlikely, when you consider Smith's long track record of interstate flight from prosecution (not to mention evading his creditors). And besides, if he was genuinely acquiescing to his impending martyrdom, then why did he bring the gun?

When the angry mob showed up, the lamb whipped out a pistol and shot three guys, killing two of them. But the crowd was too big and he ran out of bullets. Smith ran to the second-story window and looked out -- more armed vigilantes were outside. Smith climbed out on the windowsill. He may or may not have given a Masonic distress signal: "Is there no help for the widow's son?" Evidently not.

Then Smith either jumped or fell, breaking his shoulder. One of the mob stabbed him several times with a bayonet, then dragged Smith against a well. That's when the mob shot him to pieces.

After Smith's death, the Mormons split in half. His wife and son created the Reorganized LDS church (RLDS), and Brigham Young led the remnants of the original group westward to the Utah Territory. Young blamed the Masons for Smith's murder, and forbade any Mormons from joining the Freemasons. The Masons reciprocated in kind.


timeline
5 Jan 1833 Joseph Smith predicts "And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. [...] Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled."
15 Mar 1842 Joseph Smith is initiated into the Freemasons. The very next night, he will be promoted to the rank of Master Mason.
6 May 1843 Joseph Smith announces "I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished."
27 Jun 1844 Joseph Smith pulled out of a jail in Carthage, Illinois and murdered by an angry mob.

The general tone of the post is extremely disrespectful and irreverent. Referring to Jesus and "his Dad" is a pretty interesting approach for someone trying to convince a bunch of Christians that Mormons are the bad guys.

Just curious are you a Christian or are you simply a religion-hater.

As for the claims of the cut and paste, typical anti-Mormon half-truths and lies.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">a monomaniacal polygamist, an opportunist who shamelessly exploited his religious followers, who was murdered by an angry mob, infuriated by all his bullchit.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joseph Smith was a polygamist, but at best a reluctant one. He never exploited his followers and any such claim is ludicrous. Rather than exploit his followers his claims to being a prophet cost him the lives of several of his children who died as a result of persecution. The mob was not infuriated by Mormonisms claims, but rather by the political sway of Mormons in the State of Illinois.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Smith was instructed to institute a new religion, restoring God's teachings. It would be the one true church.
Smith told no one about the vision, and nothing happened for three years. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the first vision Joseph was not instructed to institute a new church. He gradually was schooled by the Lord over many years and reared up to be a prophet. The first vision was in 1820 and the church didn't even begin for another 10 years. Joseph learned gradually what his role would be. And he did tell his family about the vision and a local minister who ridiculed him for it. After the experience with the minister, he tended to keep quiet about it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then he received another visitation, this time from an angel named Moroni. Sort of like the holographic schematics of the Death Star shown to the Rebel pilots during their briefing, Moroni showed Smith a cavity hidden inside a mountain, conveniently located just outside his hometown. (What a coincidence.) In the cave was a room with wooden furnishings, with a bunch of gold tablets stacked up on the table. Then the angel told him not to go near the site until he received specific orders to do so. So Smith never told anybody about that vision either.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting analogy about the Star Wars stuff but again inaccurate. There was no cave, but rather a hole under a rock where the plates were stored, there were no wooden furnishings. The angel never forbade him from visiting the site and Joseph in fact visited the site the next day after having told his dad about the experience so much for not having told anyone.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The resulting divine scripture was the account of the lost tribe of Israel, which had sailed from Canaan across the seas to North America around 2250 B.C. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">wrong again. The Book of Mormon contains accounts of two different groups that came across the seas to the Americas, most likely South America - Not North (that sort of throws a wrench in all of the websites manifest destiny malarky). One group came after the destruction of the tower of Babel, but their account is really secondary to the main account of the peoples that departed Jerusalem around 600 AD.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course, he wasn't just the day manager. Smith adopted the official title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, claiming he literally spoke for God. Just like the Pope, except he was a U.S. citizen.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is somewhat true, except Joseph always labored for the support of his family at various times he was, in addition to leading the church, an innkeeper, a shopkeeper, and a farmer. That's not like the Pope at all.

The whole quote on Slavery, I have never heard before. I doubt it is true, seeing as how Joseph Smith did say when he was a presidential candidate that slavery should be abolished:

"Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, and infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of the public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for an hour of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity of bondage."

His suggestion of using the sale of public lands to pay slaveholders for their slaves was given at least 10 years before Ralph Waldo Emerson made the same suggestion. Joseph Smith was shot while running for President, Ralph Waldo Emerson was widely heralded as a genius for suggesting the solution.

Joseph Smith = not a racist.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God told the Mormons that a man could enter Heaven only by way of plural marriage (aka polygamy). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong, the principle of "eternal marriage" is the key here, not plural marriage. True enough Mormons did practice polygamy, just like Abraham, David, Isaac, and Jacob in the Bible.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems pretty **** unlikely, when you consider Smith's long track record of interstate flight from prosecution (not to mention evading his creditors).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Both completely untrue. He had been arrested several times to be sure, but every time he made it to trial, he was acquitted. The only time he fled was in the face of a Missouri law allowing people to shoot Mormons on sight. You'd flee to if the state you live in said your people could be shot on sight. Hardly a constitutional law don't you think.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> And besides, if he was genuinely acquiescing to his impending martyrdom, then why did he bring the gun?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fact is he didn't bring the gun. A visitor brought a gun to him and forced it on him as he was leaving. He fired the gun in defense of his friends and not until after his brother and closest friend had already been shot and killed. He leapt from the window and in doing so essentially saved the lives of the other two occupants of the jail from being the targets of the mob, when he leapt from the window the mob left the building allowing Willard Richards and John Taylor to survive the brutal attack.

As he leapt from the window he shouted "O Lord my God." not "Is there no help for a widow's son." For more information on the martyrdom read the Carthage Conspiracy by Dallin Oaks, published by the University of Chicago press (I think).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then Smith either jumped or fell, breaking his shoulder. One of the mob stabbed him several times with a bayonet, then dragged Smith against a well. That's when the mob shot him to pieces. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no account of him breaking his shoulder as it would hardly matter considering he was likely dead when he hit the ground.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">After Smith's death, the Mormons split in half. His wife and son created the Reorganized LDS church (RLDS), and Brigham Young led the remnants of the original group westward to the Utah Territory. Young blamed the Masons for Smith's murder, and forbade any Mormons from joining the Freemasons. The Masons reciprocated in kind.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, the Mormons split was more like 97% went with Brigham Young and 3% did not. The RLDS church was not established until the 1860's almost 20 years after Joseph's martyrdom and nearly 15 years after the church moved to Utah. It was not started by his wife and son. Rather, when it was started they approached his wife and son asking if they would like to be a part of it with Joseph's son being their first prophet. In the 150 years since their inception, they have moved further and further away from the foundations of Mormonism, culminating in their name change a few years ago from the RLDS church to "The Community of Christ."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">5 Jan 1833 Joseph Smith predicts "And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. [...] Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">6 May 1843 Joseph Smith announces "I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not sure where the website got these quotes (did they list sources like any legitimate researcher would?) But perhaps they were derived from a prophecy in the Doctrine & Covenants 87 given in 1832 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and dchastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full fend of all nations;

7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm, Did Joseph Smith accurately prophesy about the Civil War nearly 30 years before it's commencement?

Hmm, did Joseph Smith accurately prophesy that following the Civil War we would enter into the Historical period known as the age of Total War?

I would not expect a purveyor of porn to give an accurate portrayal of the LDS church.

Gee, I missed this in favor of addressing the cut & paste

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is the fundamentalists who practice polygamy that bug me. Because this is recent history unlike other religions which originated thousands of years ago is that we have more info about the man. Joseph Smith was a sexual predator who used supposed "revelations" from God to rape young women - he was tarred and feathered for it on one occasion and ultimately killed by a mob for having sex with a child.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, Joseph was a polygamist. However, he was not a polygamist like the polygamists today. There is little to no evidence of any children being sired by Joseph other than those his wife Emma bore. Suggesting that polygamy wasn't about sex.

Many of the 28 wives you claim he had were sealed to him for eternity, this does not imply they lived with him or had conjugal relations with him in this life.

He was tarred and feathered many times. Mostly at the behest of Christian ministers who had lost many of their flock to him. On one occassion he was dragged from a bed where he was sleeping with his infant son and tarred and feathered. The resulting exposure to the weather caused his son to contract an illness which he then died of.

He was shot not because he had sex with a child, again, based on the website you quote, you don't seem like a person that would have a problem with sex and promiscuity.

He was shot ostensibly because the city of Nauvoo, Illinois, voted as a political block Mormons were becoming very successful, very wealthy, and very powerful at the cost of other nearby towns. Because of his position as the figurehead of the church all of their frustration with Mormons was focused solely on him. Again, a Christian minister was among the leaders the mob that went to the jail where he was being held on charges of having illegally destroyed a printing press.