The Swedish Rescue - Apostasy in Sweden LDS Church

[buffalo_girl]

The more I read it, the more I think that your interpretation is a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the gentiles. Not saying no gentiles will receive the greater things, but at least in these verses the gentile role is to bring the things written to the remnant, that the remnant may be tested thereby. I would suppose that there are good things in store for the gentiles that fulfill this obligation! Have we? Are we?

I read it that the Gentiles [have been] were given the 'lesser portion' to test their ability to live the fulness of the Gospel. In the process, they will bring the knowledge they have been given to the 'remnant of Israel' to whom the resurrected Christ was speaking in those verses.

The numbers of the Sons & Daughters of Lehi who are baptized members of the Church in our area is staggering. There are 100's and 100's of 'Indian' names on the roles. They have 'stayed' themselves from full activity for any number of reasons, not the least of which has been the rudeness of the active Gentile members.

I do NOT flatter myself that my position before the Lord is superior. I am a genetic Mutt, thus a Gentile who approaches the Lord through the Gift & Power of the Holy Ghost. I am grateful to the Lord for 'numbering' me among the Covenant People.

NONE of us, Children of the Covenant and/or Converted/Adopted Gentile will receive the Greater Knowledge until after we have been tried and proven.

2Nephi 27
1 But, behold, in the last days, or in the days of the Gentiles—yea, behold all the nations of the Gentiles and also the Jews, both those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all the lands of the earth, behold, they will be drunken with iniquity and all manner of abominations—

2Nephi 30
1 And now behold, my beloved brethren, I would speak unto you; for I, Nephi, would not suffer that ye should suppose that ye are more righteous than the Gentiles shall be. For behold, except ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall all likewise perish; and because of the words which have been spoken ye need not suppose that the Gentiles are utterly destroyed.

2 For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel.

3Nephi 20
14 And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.

15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—

20 And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles.

21 And it shall come to pass that I will establish my people, O house of Israel.

22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.

26 The Father having raised me up unto you first, and sent me to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities; and this because ye are the children of the covenant—

27 And after that ye were blessed then fulfilleth the Father the covenant which he made with Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—unto the pouring out of the Holy Ghost through me upon the Gentiles, which blessing upon the Gentiles shall make them mighty above all, unto the scattering of my people, O house of Israel.

28 And they shall be a scourge unto the people of this land. Nevertheless, when they shall have received the fulness of my gospel, then if they shall harden their hearts against me I will return their iniquities upon their own heads, saith the Father.

3Nephi 21
5 Therefore, when these works and the works which shall be wrought among you hereafter shall come forth from the Gentiles, unto your seed which shall dwindle in unbelief because of iniquity;
6 For thus it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel;

[keep the faith]

I need a computer to reply properly.

I have no time for seller, tankers or Martin.
Steve Benson is just nasty. He needs to get a life.

I see 132 as about temple marriage too, not polygamy.

Book of Mormon problems, book of Abraham problems, not adhering to our own scripture in Sacrament I can reconcile.
Curious first visions, hmm, yeah.

Plus plenty of others.

KTT, with respects, they weren't answers to why he married other men's wife. And the girls.

Yet I still accept him as the Lord's vessel

How do I do that? I have to accept god is different than I was taught.

The flip side of that is that I have no personal interest in hero worshipping current leaders, and, imo, our fruits are rotten.

I could very easily go hard boiled on the many, many troubling aspects of our doctrine and history and leaders.

I don't. Please don't invoke the sickness of that film to me. I stay in a few threads only.

I need you to understand the impact on people when they learn FACTS, and they see a witch. Or the duck, or the lady spinning to the left.

Its there KTT. Attitude does not make it go away.
Focusing on the good as you say in some instances just enhances the feelings of entrapment.

These things have to be dealt with. I appreciate your responses, really do. I'm sad its up to you, and the church won't address them. We deserve better, you deserve better

The silence is deafening

Perhaps you will enjoy reading this talk by Elder Oaks outlining the life of the Prophet Joseph Aussie. I am glad that you still accept him as the Lords vessel. If you do a comprehensive study of his life you will come to know what an amazing man he was. As he told the Saints on numerous occasions, He was not a perfect man, but there were no errors in the revelations he taught. I have come to know with a certainty that Joseph did in fact do more for the salvation of man than any man who has ever lived upon the earth save it be Jesus. He is the head of this dispensation and will be crowned with glory and honor into the eternities. I thank The Lord for his courage and integrity and am forever grateful for the spiritual witness I have received of his Prophetic calling.



https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Original_Intent]

b_g,

No disagreement at all with those scriptures or what you are drawing from them. At the end of the day, house of Israel, gentile, etc doesn't make much difference - it is the fruit that they bear that matters, which is not only to say but to do according to the new covenant, which is the Book of Mormon.

I still think you are missing the mark on 3 Nephi 26:8-9 - to me it just seems like a very forced interpretation. Not meant as a put down to you at all, and I appreciate the discussion. You may be right, but I don't read it that way. I don't think verse 9 in particular says that at all, but I certainly respect your right to have a different opinion.

[LesliePOV]

Kidsmoke,

The process of the translation of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant. The Book of Mormon is either scripture or gibberish. For all I care, Joseph Smith could have used a telescope and looked at patterns on clouds to find the words of the translation. He could have burped the translation, after a treat of beans, for all I care. The Book of Mormon is true scripture, correctly translated, and neither you nor me can deny that fact.

So what if a seer stone was used? Mr. Smith was young, inexperienced and there is not a great deal of inspired translations on record on which we can compare Joseph's to, is there?

About polygamy: are you sure short tempered Emma would have not flatten Joseph's face with a frying pan if he even dreamed on doing it? Joseph Smith was far from perfect, and so are we, but he was chosen, by reasons only the Lord knows, to bring forth the Book of Mormon. By which means seems to me a sterile discussion. To an engineer and a manager like I am, by professional deformation any mouse trap is acceptable if it traps mouses.

That is some good English considering it is obviously not your first language and I enjoy the way you've used it to make your points... but the (irregular) plural for mouse is 'mice'. it's an odd one for sure. Foi um bom testemunho tambem!

[LesliePOV]

Okay Aussie, after reading some more of your debates with various folk here in the forum, I think I understand more of your reaction wherein you called something I said 'damaging'. It was my use of the question 'Does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?'...

A lot of my testimony hinges around two twin truths which I believe are actually co-dependent and inseparable.

1. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and worthy to be entrusted to head this final Dispensation.
2. The Book of Mormon is true- as are the other revelations Joseph received which are cataloged in the D&C

If one of these is wrong then they both are wrong. If either is correct then the other must be.

My 12 yr old daughter came to me tonight and noted that in prior testimonies she's borne she has used the word 'know' in reference to certain things- and that she wasn't sure she 'knows' these things. We talked about belief and the basis for belief: evidence, reasonableness, witnesses of others, etc versus having a testimony of something witnessed and confirmed by the Holy Ghost-- which we discussed as actually then being knowledge- if this has indeed happened.

So the Book of Mormon contains this promise right? and it says in Mor 10:5 "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." My question for you Aussie is: Why have you not applied to it?

Why do you seem to have this one,
unflinching requirement
that some
man
answer this question
for you?

Why the insistence on the answer of a mere mortal Aussie? I am reading from your posts that there is a controversy that you seem to have set up as historical fact already and that this would be the skeleton in the closet that brings down this prophet as a philanderer, with the church as his after the fact accessory. And you are really REALLY fixed on this one woman that you roundly reason JS MUST have had sex with.... why? I submit that it is based of evidence that pleases you and this natural man's mind of yours and therefore it is deemed admissible in the court of AussieOi. All we need to do is to disprove a negative-- to your satisfaction? Is that ike proving I am not a racist and a homophobe and a male chauvinist pig when you have something against me that can be used to say I am? In my case, I lilely have proved myself to be all three to somebody in my life, but that is beside the point.

I see that you indeed have yourself a conundrum. Because either the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. If it is true then you know you can still rely on Moroni 10:5 to answer your question about Joseph and this young girl,,, or JS and a LOT of girls, for that matter. And Joseph is a true prophet or he lost it all like King David did, right? But Joseph's ability to rely on operation of the Spirit requires that he be chaste and faithful as far as commanded and within the boundaries the Lord sets right? So, if he DID step into infidelity then how did this NOT affect his (purported) ability to PROPHESY, to be a SEER and to produce REVELATION? Do you have evidence showing that it did? (Corrupt tree / good fruit?)

If Joseph was engaging in infidelities then how is it that this did not hamper his ability to access the Spirit? He should have been toast the minute he engaged in unauthorized sexual relations. Or had the church received all the revelations it needed from him at that point?. That is what I meant about a corrupt tree bringing forth good fruit. I see denial and corruption and the temptation to abuse position and prestige quite often. DC 121 39 says almost all men fall against this at some time or other, or some of them do a lot of the time... Maybe JS was wrong about that one?, being a fallen prophet because of his cavorting with a 'maid' that his wife actually ejected from the home because they were carnal consorts?

I hope you get through this and have a really good conversion story on the other end Bro'.

[AussieOi]

Okay Aussie, after reading some more of your debates with various folk here in the forum, I think I understand more of your reaction wherein you called something I said 'damaging'. It was my use of the question 'Does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?'...



no it wasnt
IIRC it was your reply in general
from memory it was nice, but completely missed the point
it was telling him its his fault and HE needs to change himself, do something, more of the same, abide by the Morbot kingdom to get the answer
the point of that, is thats precisely what is being put under scrutiny, ergo, it has to be viewed in isolation and judged properly
it just perpetuated the guilt cycle
the fault lies in me, not it

A lot of my testimony hinges around two twin truths which I believe are actually co-dependent and inseparable.

1. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and worthy to be entrusted to head this final Dispensation.

why are those 2 mutually reliant?
as we've discussed here, prophet is a pretty broad thing
head of dispensation is an interesting one
did he achieve his objective?
can man fall from grace?

2. The Book of Mormon is true- as are the other revelations Joseph received which are cataloged in the D&C
again, why must they be?
Did 132 come from him or BY?
Why was 101 removed?
What about 143? (?) when he died
second only to christ, says who? do i have to accept that?
what are these manifestos?
if 132 was an eternal commandment, where in the D&C is the commandment to stop that?


you know, does that mean your testimony goes down if you discover he took half of the book of mormon from his cousin ethan smith who wrote view of the hebrews, and oliver cowdery who was in ethans congregation, and ol Mr Swedenborg?

for me, it doesnt

but if you tie more to each individual item, for you, they come apart, dont' they?

ergo under your narrative (i hate that word, so overused lately, so how about we use "paradigm"?) there is no room that he could have had sex with his housekeepers



If one of these is wrong then they both are wrong. If either is correct then the other must be.


no, refer concept of non sequitur

My 12 yr old daughter came to me tonight and noted that in prior testimonies she's borne she has used the word 'know' in reference to certain things- and that she wasn't sure she 'knows' these things.

brave girl. she must have a good mum who isn't brainwashing her into teen hysteria

We talked about belief and the basis for belief: evidence, reasonableness, witnesses of others, etc versus having a testimony of something witnessed and confirmed by the Holy Ghost-- which we discussed as actually then being knowledge- if this has indeed happened.

So the Book of Mormon contains this promise right? and it says in Mor 10:5 "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." My question for you Aussie is: Why have you not applied to it?

my question to you is, after all you have read, you havent cottoned on that a great many here HAVE indeed done so, and come up with some startling confirmations, lately
i'd dare also proffer that most of us are here BECAUSE many years ago, we did the same, and received confirmation that the book of mormon was divine
but i never signed onto the in for 1 point, must accept all the church tells me to obey
as we have seen these things changed
for political reasons
for jealous reasons
for ego reasons
for selfish reasons
for good reasons
must i hitch my rope on a bullock train led by a man, or can i follow christ?
or my own inspiration
or wisdom
?

Why do you seem to have this one,
unflinching requirement
that some
man
answer this question
for you?

Why the insistence on the answer of a mere mortal Aussie?

because, as you can't comprehend, due to your in for one must be in for all paradigm, some things in our church are very, very rotten, and im working out what i choose to accept is of god, and what isn't

you can't see its a miracle that most of us who have come to this enlightenment, and it is enlightenment i assure you, are still participating in the church?

why a mere mortal, because, i am sorry to say, our deal leader, sustained to be prophets, seers and revelators, have IMO, abrogated their responsibility and duty and ability to step up and answer these questions themselves

case in point blacks and the priesthood "we don't know why or when it started...no one asked god whether it should be stopped"

current case in point, sending 2 lawyers called "historians" to pretend they were going to answer some very, very relevant questions, only to disappear on those they promised answers to

are you surprised?

but actually, the arm i am now reliant on is Christ, not man

I just dont expect he's going to answer questions about our troubled history. after all, our historians have the records, thats the arm of flesh that i am expecting to answer those questions

they said they would. all those BYU papers that they said would be published that never were. hmm

I am reading from your posts that there is a controversy that you seem to have set up as historical fact already and that this would be the skeleton in the closet that brings down this prophet as a philanderer, with the church as his after the fact accessory.

nothing i can say will do any more than is factual, and most people who CAN accept it, can clearly see

And you are really REALLY fixed on this one woman that you roundly reason JS MUST have had sex with.... why?

for the only reason that her name is on Family search, and most people in LDS land refuse to accept anything non LDS as worth considering. but they can't ignore than

ideally, i would name the other 15 wives listed there, that he also married, including those married to other men he sent on missions

so why that one?
a) she was 14
b) thats a child
c) she had a trust fund
d) emma threw her out..gee, why
e) the church admits there were married
f) it was in 1835, a year before Elijah came and restored sealing powers

but i submit you probably don't think he did have sex with a 14 year old, and "Marry" her, because of your A & B paradigm

would that be correct?

I submit that it is based of evidence that pleases you and this natural man's mind of yours and therefore it is deemed admissible in the court of AussieOi.

natural mans mind of mine? and you wonder why i said in the other post, gee Les, do you know how damaging that is?
its like the wife who is beaten "well you are a bad cook and bad wife weren't you."
how do you turn him having sex with many many women, marrying them, and 14 year old children, into MY natural mans mind?
you don't see what you are doing here Les?

All we need to do is to disprove a negative-- to your satisfaction? Is that ike proving I am not a racist and a homophobe and a male chauvinist pig when you have something against me that can be used to say I am? In my case, I lilely have proved myself to be all three to somebody in my life, but that is beside the point.

yeah it is because its stupid leslie. its a diversion.
the truth is there Leslie., its on family search
even the historians in sweden in the transcript said yes he did marry these women, did have sex with them, did marry them while married to other men
and these are THE LDS historians, well, as they are designated



I see that you indeed have yourself a conundrum. Because either the Book of Mormon is true or it is not.

well we have circular logic now don't we. and i can't argue against the paradigm you paint yourself into a corner with
did friends of David say the same about him when family of Uriah said hey hang on?



If it is true then you know you can still rely on Moroni 10:5 to answer your question about Joseph and this young girl,,, or JS and a LOT of girls, for that matter.

so i pray and get a "no, he didn't.
so what happens to truth, logic, historical records, the reality, the historians, and family search
do i write to them and tell them they got it wrong?

And Joseph is a true prophet or he lost it all like King David did, right? But Joseph's ability to rely on operation of the Spirit requires that he be chaste and faithful as far as commanded and within the boundaries the Lord sets right?


ah. now you are getting interesting
does it?

So, if he DID step into infidelity then how did this NOT affect his (purported) ability to PROPHESY, to be a SEER and to produce REVELATION? Do you have evidence showing that it did? (Corrupt tree / good fruit?)

do you have evidence that god only works through 100% pure , sinless vessels



If Joseph was engaging in infidelities then how is it that this did not hamper his ability to access the Spirit? He should have been toast the minute he engaged in unauthorized sexual relations.

your paradigm, not mine

Or had the church received all the revelations it needed from him at that point?.

well now you are thinking.
many think from 1835 it all went a bit haywire

That is what I meant about a corrupt tree bringing forth good fruit. I see denial and corruption and the temptation to abuse position and prestige quite often.

from Church HQ in 2013? absolutely


DC 121 39 says almost all men fall against this at some time or other, or some of them do a lot of the time... Maybe JS was wrong about that one?, being a fallen prophet because of his cavorting with a 'maid' that his wife actually ejected from the home because they were carnal consorts?

I hope you get through this and have a really good conversion story on the other end Bro'.

thanks for discussing Leslie

i think you are in a corner, and one day when the church admits a few sad and salacious truths, you will have to rethink your framework

you wont be alone

[francisco.colaco]

That is some good English considering it is obviously not your first language and I enjoy the way you've used it to make your points... but the (irregular) plural for mouse is 'mice'. it's an odd one for sure. Foi um bom testemunho tambem!

Actually, two plurals are allowed for mouse: mouses and mice. The first comes from the normand norm, the second from the saxon. Just like with cows and kine, bees or been, knees or kneen, shoes or shoen, trees or treen. I have read thad with my own eyen (or eyes, if you prefer).

You do have a really rich, fantastic language, full of alternatives and of cultural influences. I am actually used to memorise the plurals and the articles of words, condition necessary to speak german and russian.

As you know portuguese, only one word allows for two plurals in portuguese: that is the word «mel» (honey), which allows «meles» and «meis». Just a small information not every portuguese knows.

[LesliePOV]

I'm sorry I don't feel I am in a corner over this. But I can see that by your admission that you are unconfirmed by the HG and that you do not feel the need to be.

That is quite an admission on your part. I think this puts you yourself in a bit of a corner. Maybe this whole website is that 'corner' you speak of?

I am thinking I need to re-evaluate how my time invested here is actually bearing fruit and what fruit this is before I become as 'abrasive' to the purposes of this resident insider group as BrenOx has?

I am grateful for friction here that has resulted in the increase of my testimony of JS and the institution and covenant of Plural Marriage as a result of my own personal study of questions that some of the other discussions threads have motivated.

But Aussie, compared to that, the fruit of your logic and your 'evidence' is quite dissimilar in it's taste. It is also lacks the Spirit and seems to me to be incongruent with the packaging you market it in.

Your assertion that there was a major contribution by a co-author / translator other than Joseph Smith would be very provable, if true. Textual analysis would reveal an unmistakeable SIGNATURE of differences in the use of idiom and compositional structure in the BoMormon by this 'other author' to be as unique as a fingerprint... if there were another author as you claim... The 'anti's' with whom you seem to sympathize would've been all over that one long ago. THAT ONE would be simply too easily proved as true- if it actually were.

So have at it.

G'day

[francisco.colaco]

Once again, Joseph Smith was a prophet all his life or was a prophet until a certain point or was no prophet at all.

Denying the historicity and the correctness translation of the Book of Mormon is a true exercise of twistness and idiocy. You can start to ask Dr. Jones on his findings of equus bones in America. You can ask all the people that have been gathering evidences on the Book of Mormon. That book would not have been fault proof if it was true fiction. There is nothing that positively denies the Book of Mormon, and there are a lot of small evidences that pop out here'n there. Granted, none of those are conclusive. I personally believe that is a feature of God's plan, not a bug. One has to find the veracity of the Book of Mormon by himself (or herself, to be politically correct). There is a need for personal effort and dedication to know godly matters, which is, if one takes a closer look at it, the true path to personal improvement. I have got my testimony when I converted. I know the Book of Mormon is true.

So, Joseph Smith was a prophet. Was he a prophet until the very last day of his life? I believe he was. There are, though, many churches that are founded on the belief that Joseph Smith fell away at some point in his life. Well, I believe that if he did, the members of the Church would have been dispersed and the Church would have been a mere footnote in some academic study on the first half of the XIX century regional religious restorationist religious movements in the eastern United States.

I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet o God up to the last day of his terrenial existence, and a freekin' good one, if I might add. As this is a LDS forum, I say that whomever has the audacity to proclaim that Joseph Smith was no prophet os was a fallen prophet bears the burden of providing evidence, if there is such a thing.

I told once to a communist that was trying to tell me and an audience that God does not exist: five seconds after death there are no atheists, and we can all agree on that. In the same fashion, five seconds after death any of us will be fully enlightened as to if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has God's approval or not.

[AussieOi]

I'm sorry I don't feel I am in a corner over this. But I can see that by your admission that you are unconfirmed by the HG and that you do not feel the need to be.

That is quite an admission on your part. I think this puts you yourself in a bit of a corner. Maybe this whole website is that 'corner' you speak of?

I am thinking I need to re-evaluate how my time invested here is actually bearing fruit and what fruit this is before I become as 'abrasive' to the purposes of this resident insider group as BrenOx has?

I am grateful for friction here that has resulted in the increase of my testimony of JS and the institution and covenant of Plural Marriage as a result of my own personal study of questions that some of the other discussions threads have motivated.

But Aussie, compared to that, the fruit of your logic and your 'evidence' is quite dissimilar in it's taste. It is also lacks the Spirit and seems to me to be incongruent with the packaging you market it in.

Your assertion that there was a major contribution by a co-author / translator other than Joseph Smith would be very provable, if true. Textual analysis would reveal an unmistakeable SIGNATURE of differences in the use of idiom and compositional structure in the BoMormon by this 'other author' to be as unique as a fingerprint... if there were another author as you claim... The 'anti's' with whom you seem to sympathize would've been all over that one long ago. THAT ONE would be simply too easily proved as true- if it actually were.

So have at it.

G'day

yes, so there I have it

[Franktalk]

Does anyone know of anyplace in the Bible or Book of Mormon where a man was commanded by God to marry more than one wife?

It is my understanding that God has stated that one wife is what He desires us to do.

In my view Peter made mistakes as an apostle before he was an old man. We see that he was corrected for his attitude and opinions about how the Jewish law of Moses was to be applied to the gentiles. The scriptures are clear. But when Peter killed Ananias and his wife I believe Peter did this on his own and it was against the wishes of God. I think we are to find this error of Peter and see it as an error. Many do not see the scriptures the same way I do in this area. I accept that. I also see many places where stumbling blocks are included in the scriptures for the readers of the world to stumble on. It was Peter when he was old that pointed this fact out. So with my understanding of the scriptures I am reviewing all of the D and C. I look for errors. An error is when a statement by a prophet does not match or contradicts some thing written in the Bible or Book of Mormon.

This work of mine is not to lower Joseph Smith. I hold him in high regard and will always do so. But my first duty is for truth. And truth comes from God. What comes from the mouth or a prophet may or may not come from God. We are to check. Have we learned nothing from reading about the Jews who asked Moses to speak to God and tell them what He said? Why do we argue over the finer doctrine of Paul? Don't we have the Holy Spirit to help us discern the scriptures? I see way too many good people who I know are in tune with the Holy Spirit disagree on some points in scripture. How can this be? To me this is done on purpose by God. We are given certain truths which we are to hold onto, we are to drive a stake in the ground and not waver from that truth. But on some parts of scripture the Holy Spirit is silent. I must conclude that we are on our own in these areas or those parts of scripture are still closed.

It is my belief that the history of the church shows us some of the conflicts in the D and C and some talks given by the GA's. This does not mean I hate the church or want to work against it. I want to know the truth. If it matches what men have said then that is great. If it disagrees with what some have said then I strike out what is error. Who can argue with what I am doing? Are not the leaders doing the same every time they correct a past GA? If the Holy Spirit can talk to them it can surely talk to me. Is this not the real reason there was a Swedish Rescue? The people saw things which made no sense and they wanted the truth.

I see two camps of people. One group will accept what ever they are told by their leaders. The other group goes to God and checks things out independently. The scriptures tell us to listen to our leaders but to check the scriptures to see if those things said are so. Remember what John the beloved of God told us:

1 John 5

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Our witness is the Spirit. Even the Word of God must be read through the Spirit on the earth. Only in heaven is the Word a record. I think some rest way too much on prophets and leaders. So in my mind the questions asked by the Swedes were valid. The response by the leaders was not. But just as we love our children when they make a mistake we can still love our leaders when they make one. We are all weak.

[AussieOi]

Once again, Joseph Smith was a prophet all his life or was a prophet until a certain point or was no prophet at all.

Denying the historicity and the correctness translation of the Book of Mormon is a true exercise of twistness and idiocy. You can start to ask Dr. Jones on his findings of equus bones in America. You can ask all the people that have been gathering evidences on the Book of Mormon. That book would not have been fault proof if it was true fiction. There is nothing that positively denies the Book of Mormon, and there are a lot of small evidences that pop out here'n there. Granted, none of those are conclusive. I personally believe that is a feature of God's plan, not a bug. One has to find the veracity of the Book of Mormon by himself (or herself, to be politically correct). There is a need for personal effort and dedication to know godly matters, which is, if one takes a closer look at it, the true path to personal improvement. I have got my testimony when I converted. I know the Book of Mormon is true.

So, Joseph Smith was a prophet. Was he a prophet until the very last day of his life? I believe he was. There are, though, many churches that are founded on the belief that Joseph Smith fell away at some point in his life. Well, I believe that if he did, the members of the Church would have been dispersed and the Church would have been a mere footnote in some academic study on the first half of the XIX century regional religious restorationist religious movements in the eastern United States.

I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet o God up to the last day of his terrenial existence, and a freekin' good one, if I might add. As this is a LDS forum, I say that whomever has the audacity to proclaim that Joseph Smith was no prophet os was a fallen prophet bears the burden of providing evidence, if there is such a thing.

familysearch.org

deal with it

I told once to a communist that was trying to tell me and an audience that God does not exist: five seconds after death there are no atheists, and we can all agree on that. In the same fashion, five seconds after death any of us will be fully enlightened as to if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has God's approval or not.

[LesliePOV]

Aussie: i think we have all seen the entry on familysearch.org .... which doe not prove everything you presume to associate with it. they were sealed. You cannot pretend to know all the reasons or purposes for a sealing yet you repeatedly imply and would have us all infer, that the motive was obviously lecherous..

Case closed?

Maybe in the court of AussieOi but virtually nowhere else.

Your 'proof' proves that he was sealed to women... good onya then... wanna medal with that? :ymparty:

[LesliePOV]

FC- I explained the unique plural case to minha mel na verdade as ambas da minha meles? interesante mesmo. Disculpe, sou certanejo Americano com certeza. E minha esposa e certaneja tambem por causa ela e..... Brasileira. kkkkkk :))

O que e que nos vamos fazer?

[keep the faith]

I'm sorry I don't feel I am in a corner over this. But I can see that by your admission that you are unconfirmed by the HG and that you do not feel the need to be.

That is quite an admission on your part. I think this puts you yourself in a bit of a corner. Maybe this whole website is that 'corner' you speak of?

I am thinking I need to re-evaluate how my time invested here is actually bearing fruit and what fruit this is before I become as 'abrasive' to the purposes of this resident insider group as BrenOx has?

I am grateful for friction here that has resulted in the increase of my testimony of JS and the institution and covenant of Plural Marriage as a result of my own personal study of questions that some of the other discussions threads have motivated.

But Aussie, compared to that, the fruit of your logic and your 'evidence' is quite dissimilar in it's taste. It is also lacks the Spirit and seems to me to be incongruent with the packaging you market it in.

Your assertion that there was a major contribution by a co-author / translator other than Joseph Smith would be very provable, if true. Textual analysis would reveal an unmistakeable SIGNATURE of differences in the use of idiom and compositional structure in the BoMormon by this 'other author' to be as unique as a fingerprint... if there were another author as you claim... The 'anti's' with whom you seem to sympathize would've been all over that one long ago. THAT ONE would be simply too easily proved as true- if it actually were.

So have at it.

G'day

You nailed it Leslie. Aussie admits that he has not gone to the only reliable source for truth in his quest to get a handle on Josephs prophetic mantle. He has instead immersed himself in the writings of disillusioned or anti folks who have established a narrative about Joseph that will not be moved. There is a never ending string of accusations leveled against the Prophet Joseph on myriads of web sites and blogs and books that could keep someone busy for years to come. Joseph was a this; Joseph was a that. Every derogatory insult that could possibly be created. The accusations are never ending. After it is all said and done someone who has received no spiritual witness from the source of all truth will think Joseph was Cain reincarnated if they buy into this narrative.

The same has be said of todays oracles. One accusation after another leveled against Pres. Monson and those who serve with him. Accusations like corruption, abuse of power, unrighteous dominion, salt that has lost its savor, and on and on continue to be leveled at those called to this high and holy calling. As Aussie said in his post according to him all those terms describe church headquarters at present.

Yet in all these accusations there is a total reliance on the arm of flesh feeding all these fires for anyone who has the desire to play the game. One accusation after another accusation made by MEN. Yet the cry "I rely on Christ and the spirit" is continually evoked by all those who play into this charade. Talk about a nesting ground for cognitive dissonance. That is it.
"And by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things."

Let me go on record here as saying that the Spirit of the Lord has confirmed to my soul that Joseph Smith was in every facet of the words a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. He finished his mission with honor and integrity and will be known in the annuls of history and throughout the eternities as a chosen vessel of the Lord called, set apart and sent to this earth to accomplish this great latter day mission vital to the salvation of all the souls of all men who have lived upon this earth. In like manner we have a living Prophet today in Thomas S Monson who continues to direct the affair of this work in righteousness and holds all the necessary Priesthood keys. He has the stamp of approval from Him whose Church this is named after, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I do not rely on the arm of flesh for this witness and testimony. My witness comes from a kind and merciful Lord. That I know.

[AGStacker]

Gosh darn it Brian, I wanted the results of his study.

I think he told us above. He started his study in 2006 (the year Denver's first book came out) and then blamed Denver for every single person that ever discovered an historical issue with the church ever since 2006. DS is the boogeyman. Now he has everyone on here on his list he was making... so watch out Big Brother is on to you.

Gad, not since 2006 but I think he meant that's how far back he looked.

[AGStacker]

Aussie,

I would say that the Church's version of Joseph Smith's First Vision is probably not the most accurate one. I would believe more what he originally said.

Who knew if Joseph Smith actually was polygamous. He actively fought against it. We have proof of that. In fact he was very clear he didn't do it. We don't have any record of his dozens of children that he would have had if he was a polygamist. Emma said he didn't do it and so did his children. The only "evidence" we have is obscure, and sometimes contradictory, testimonies from women in Salt Lake Valley many years later when polygamy was widely accepted and lived by many leaders of the Church.

Rock's post "Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy" is a good read.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ygamy.html

[Gad]

Gosh darn it Brian, I wanted the results of his study.

I think he told us above. He started his study in 2006 (the year Denver's first book came out) and then blamed Denver for every single person that ever discovered an historical issue with the church ever since 2006. DS is the boogeyman. Now he has everyone on here on his list he was making... so watch out Big Brother is on to you.

Gad, not since 2006 but I think he meant that's how far back he looked.

Yeah, I didn't mean that BRLenox was lurking here since 2006. I just think it is very revealing that he chose to go back to 2006 as the starting point of his "study".

[francisco.colaco]

Christ was targetted by all sides: by pharisees, by saducees, by essenians. Those groups often hated each other, but were pretty united on the Son of David, and rightful king of Israel. Most of those that accused Christ were jews that professed the antecipation (yes, as in Church of Antecipation, look it up!). And yet, when the Messiah they waited on came, they made sure He was crucified.

I wonder not that Pres. Monson does and will always receive the same treatment, targetted from all sides. Only a false prophet would be honoured by Babylon (actually, if you read Revelation...)

I will not deal with Joseph Smith, Aussie (and I reiterate that a bit of education and respect does us both good, and preservers the good and well deserved name of Australia and of australians) because there is no problem. The young lady in question 1) was not pregnant of Joseph Smith, and did not bear his biological child, 2) Emma Smith was not easy to deal with, and would really expel Mr. Joseph out the door if he even did dream on taking another wife. Emma never never once admit to Joseph's polygamy (the kern, in fact, of the eastern Mormon churches beliefs). Moreover, remember that if a letter from Joseph Smith's descendant is accurate (as placed on another thread) Emma did voice her claim recently that she did only not go West because she was tired and could not stand such a journey. Approving the LDS church, she told her descendant to follow his heart and join the LDS church. For me, that is enough.

Now, Aussie, if you have a problem with the Chuch doctrine, and do not want to make the effort and feel the pain of regaining your position, be a man once and for all and leave. Leave and forget you were ever an LDS. That is the manly thing to do. From where I stand, I see a resentful person that does not want to belong, but can't also leave. That is, by the way, cataloged as a form of mental illness. Unless you can tell us you have doubts that you want to see resolved, and are earnestly seeking help and opinions, you have better in living your life not being LDS at all. Forgetting and moving on, leaving those that believe believe at will,and moving to a fishing forum or to a washing machines repair forum, is a mark of an adult.

Whatever the outcome is with your life, I wish you the best of luck. I could place a bet that within five years you will be returning to the LDS core, probably after a good godly bashing (it happens, God does not leave us completely alone, and sometimes not alone means a lott'a suffering!). Just rethink your life, be LDS or leave, wasting no time on hurch members. If you choose to remain LDS, and I suppose you are well worthy of being LDS, restart paying your tithing and make a sincere effort. Give the Lord a chance or, as I and others have painfully discovered, a day will come when you will feel it's [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE] season. You are too valuable for the Lord, so, sorry!, there will be no painless way to either leave or rejoin the Church.

On the lighter side, you are aussie, and should therefore be tough as a bull!

[Gad]

Casting out the lost sheep does not seem like something Christ would do. God forgive us all.

[PSCahill]

AussieOi,

You asked:
Did 132 come from him or BY?
Why was 101 removed?

I think you may have read Rock's puremormonism blog posting that referred to the book called "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy"?
I did, and am reading the book itself, up to only chapter 4 so far.

But I think that it is likely that 132 came from BY, and was not from Joseph at all.
And 101 was removed when 132 was inserted, because they conflicted, as you know.

I do not believe the rumors and accusations that Joseph supported or indulged in any sort of polygamy or adultery.
I think those rumors were started by those who wanted the church to support polygamy, and Joseph condemned it, over and over.

I do not trust even Family Search in this matter, as many things were planted against Joseph, before and after he died.

And I believe his murder was planned by those who wanted to overthrow him and institute polygamy as church doctrine.
But President Hinckley said in a tv interview when asked if we would "bring back polygamy" that we would not, as it was not doctrinal.
It never was doctrinal.

Throw out the polygamists, if you need to, and all of the other satanic infiltration (Wilford Woodruff and the Bohemian Grove people). But please, don't accept what men have said about Joseph. He said his name would be had for good and ill. I believe he lived and died a righteous and innocent man and Prophet of God.

[jo1952]

Was 132 polygamy, or temple marriage?

Which is the new covenant?

What I have learned (and I'll certainly be lambasted by someone for stating this.....), is that the New and Everlasting Covenant is the most recent covenant you have made with God. For example, when you are baptized you make covenants with God - at that time, THAT is the New and Everlasting Covenant for you. Then later in life when you go through the endowment ceremony and make new covenants, THAT is the New and Everlasting Covenant for you.

Interesting. I had not thought of it in this way before.

[PSCahill]

AGStacker said:

Rock's post "Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy" is a good read.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ygamy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have to say that post has changed my view of life and the church.
In a very positive way. I have been struggling with the "wheat and tares" syndrome for some time now.
When I have seen things in church history that make my head spin, I hardly know how to think about these things.

But this post has somehow given me the strength and courage to think again.
I have prayed so much about this, and it seems to me to be truth.
The level of documentation in the book Rock addresses is amazing.

I feel like my faith in the church has been restored, rather than challenged, because my faith in Joseph has been restored.
I wonder if anyone else has felt this way?

[jo1952]

It would have been nice if the two men who visited Sweden for the purpose of addressing the questions being asked had spent at least as much time addressing those questions, as they spent traveling to get there. A couple of hours of time vs the eternity of those souls? Where are our priorities?

[AGStacker]

Casting out the lost sheep does not seem like something Christ would do. God forgive us all.

In fact Gad, remember, Christ lifts up the "lost" sheep and "layeth" him/her upon HIS shoulders.

6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Really? Need no repentance? We all are this lost sheep.