Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2015, 12:29 AM
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
(04-08-2015 12:25 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 08:58 PM)Cosmic Discourse Wrote:  I resent that, I prefer the term very very special, thank you

I'm sorry man but as GWG suggested you have to leave room for all the other whack jobs.

It's like in figure skating where they can't give the first skater a 10 because then they have to leave room for the others.

Of course, skaters are athletes and religious shitballs are, well....shitballs.
As long as I receive my participation trophy and certificate in a timely and orderly fashion
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cosmic Discourse's post
04-08-2015, 06:52 AM
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
I have watched the video
1) I do not regret that I did. I have learned something new. Which is great.
2)It took me about 3 hours to watch it. Too many things to learn, too many things to think about(to digest).
3)I have some questions for you.
4)I will ask them after we are done with First Vision, style of the translation of the BoM.
5)But before we are done with those 2 arguments I want to ask you something -
Did you ever have a chance to show this video to LDS (your father for example) and to have their response? If yes, what was their responses? Did they want to talk about? Were they disappointed? what was their reaction?
thanks,
now back to you, my friend.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2015 09:19 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
(03-08-2015 11:06 PM)Alla Wrote:  2 GOODWITHOUTGOD,
I will respond to one argument at the time.
Are we done with First Vision argument?
I responded:

Journal of Discourses or Times and Seasons.
1)Who says that those sources can not have errors? wrong personal opinions?
Please answer.
2)How many different accounts of the First Vision are written by the hand of Joseph Smith?
Please answer.
When you tell me how many and which one you are talking about I will answer.
We have lots of time to discuss all your arguments. let's take it easy. Let's make a deep breath OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM and enjoy the dialogue. Smile

(03-08-2015 11:06 PM)Alla Wrote:  2 GOODWITHOUTGOD,
I will respond to one argument at the time.
Are we done with First Vision argument?
I responded:

Journal of Discourses or Times and Seasons.
1)Who says that those sources can not have errors? wrong personal opinions?
Please answer.
2)How many different accounts of the First Vision are written by the hand of Joseph Smith?
Please answer.
When you tell me how many and which one you are talking about I will answer.
We have lots of time to discuss all your arguments. let's take it easy. Let's make a deep breath OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM and enjoy the dialogue. Smile

We didn’t begin to discuss the first vision. You stated “errors happen” as if that explains changing god’s vision 10 times that was given to his special, and I emphasize the word special…prophet. There is a big difference between a typo, or perhaps a misspoken word…and changing large portions of the “vision.”

Ahhh so we are going to play that game, mkay.

“how many different accounts of the First Vision are written by the hand of Joseph Smith?”

(right out of the Mormon apologetic handbook lol) oh the tangled web we weave..I’ll play along, only because if you notice, there are always guests lurking in this forum, some of which are sitting on the fence deciding on which way to lean, and when people like you wander into my web, I get to show the world the hollowness of your convictions, the transparency of your apologetics, and the invalidity of your religion. As such, you will do more to create more atheists then I ever could. Let us begin.
As I laid out in great detail already, but you wish to start the tapdancing, so dance away…

The first one he wrote was “lost” and he had to rewrite it, and *gasp* it was a different version.

So important is this vision that it is published as scripture to the Mormon people in a book known as The Pearl of Great Price. This official version was taken from the early LDS publication Times and Seasons, which originally published it on April 1, 1842 (pp. 748-749). Joseph Smith wrote this account of the vision in 1838, 18 years after it supposedly happened. number one

On May 24, 1844, Alexander Niebaur wrote the first vision in his journal as Joseph Smith told it to him. Now here you can play the game of “Alexander could have typed or changed or misunderstood what Joseph told him” but that would be extremely disingenuous. I am sure Joseph would have taken quite an issue with changes in what he stated to Alexander. But just to be nice, we can say this “wasn’t by the hand of Joseph”

In 1843, Joseph Smith gave an interview to the Pittsburgh Gazette, which was reprinted in the New York Observer on Sept. 23, 1843. Same concession as above, but again, it would be presumptuous to expect Joseph woldnt take issue with changes to his vision. Charlatans are always insistent that their story remain the same.

On March 1, 1842, the Times and Seasons published contents of a letter written by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth. This was published one full month before the account that is accepted as the official version today. In this one, Joseph Smith did not give his age. He mentioned no evil power overcoming him, and he said two personages visited him, though he never identifies them. It is significant that he did not mention the evil power that played so prominently in the story and also that he omitted that the personages visiting him were supposedly God the Father and Jesus Christ.number two

In 1841, Joseph Smith's brother William Smith told the story to James Murdock. This account is published in A New Witness For Christ In America (2:414-415). This account lists Joseph as being 17 years old when he received the vision, and rather than God and Jesus appearing to him, William states that it was only a "glorious angel." Admittedly, this account is third hand, and William could certainly have been mistaken about Joseph's age. But it is not likely that he would forget that God Himself and Jesus Christ visited his brother, unless he was never told that to begin with.

Usually we dismiss third-hand accounts in our research, believing them to usually be very unreliable. However, this account is substantiated by other sources. For example, in the early LDS publication Times and Seasons for December 15, 1840 (Vol.2 pg. 241), Oliver Cowdery stated specifically that Joseph Smith, Jr. was 17 at the time of the first vision - specifically placing the year of the vision in 1823. And in at least seven other places in the Journal of Discourses, early LDS leaders shared that it was only an unidentified angel that visited Joseph, not God and Jesus (2:171, 196, 197; 10:127; 13:78, 324; 20:167). Brigham Young even stated specifically that the Lord did not visit young Joseph. In reference to this vision he said "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven...But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun...and informed him that he should not join any of the religions of the day, for they were all wrong;..." (Journal of Discourses 2:171).

William Smith's account was also printed in part in the RLDS Church publication The Saints Herald (Vol. 31 No. 40, page 643, 6/8/1884). No correction or retraction of the information published there was ever printed. We must keep in mind that both the LDS and RLDS (now known as the Community of Christ) share the same history for the first several years of Mormonism's existence. Contradictions regarding Smith's Vision would affect the credibility of both groups.

Finally, this account is also worthy of special consideration because it was first brought to light by a Mormon researcher from the LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University. As mentioned earlier, Paul Cheesman wrote his master's thesis in 1965 entitled "An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions." In that study he discusses this differing account of the first vision in detail. It was subsequently discussed by LDS scholars in the publication Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for Autumn 1966. None of these researchers and scholars dismissed the account as mere gossip; rather they discussed it as a valid account worthy of consideration. There is no reason, then, for us not to consider it as well. But I will concede this is “third-hand testimony” and give it a pass for arguments sake.

In 1837, William Appleby recorded the vision story as given by Orson Pratt in his diary. Since Orson Pratt was a first-hand witness to the early events of Mormonism and to the life of Joseph Smith, Jr., his version of the events are of significant importance for consideration – even when recorded in a listener's journal. However, for arguments sake, I will concede this was third-hand testimony.

In 1835, Joseph Smith dictated his own account of the first vision for his personal diary. There is some question among scholars, even those who are LDS, as to who the scribe was for this part of the diary. Some believe it was Warren Parrish, but others believe it was Warren Cowdery. Regardless of which man physically wrote the account, the fact is that it appears in the official diary of the Prophet, and this journal entry is accepted as accurate and valid. In this account, which was first published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (VI, No.1, pg. 87), the evil power is mentioned for the very first time. In all previous published accounts (listed below), no evil power was ever mentioned by Joseph. Also, he does not claim that the messengers were God and Jesus, just that many angels visited him. That seems to be a very curious omission. I could go 50/50 in the interest of academic integrity, but I think this one counts since it is in the official personal diary, and has been accepted by the church as accurate and valid. But just to be nice, we can say this “wasn’t by the hand of Joseph” .

In February 1835, the LDS publication Messenger and Advocate recorded the account of the vision that Joseph Smith gave to Oliver Cowdery. In this account, Joseph was 17 years old, the revival is in 1823, and no mention is made of James 1:5. Instead, Joseph claimed he had been wondering if there was a God and if his sins could be forgiven. His only reason for praying was to ask if God did exist. After "11 or 12 hours" in prayer, he was visited by "a messenger from God" who forgave Joseph's sins. While this vision is given in the Messenger and Advocate as the first vision of Joseph Smith, this story was later revised and published as a second vision from the angel Moroni preparatory to giving Joseph Smith the golden plates.

It should be noted that this account was printed not only in an LDS publication but also during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. No statements by Joseph against the accuracy of this account have been found, indicating his approval of the information given. It was also a second-hand account given by Oliver Cowdery, a witness to many of the key events in LDS history. The same account was also copied unchanged into Joseph Smith's Manuscript History of the Church and subsequently into the LDS publication Times and Seasons.

Since it was copied into so many LDS publications and records without any changes, the account must have been considered accurate and valid to Joseph Smith at that time. This adds quite a bit of significance to the differing details of this version. Again, I don’t like teetering back and forth, and normally only accept first-hand eyewitness testimony for establishing accuracy of what prophet so and so said or did, but since the church states this is accurate and valid, who am I to argue… But just to be nice, we can say this “wasn’t by the hand of Joseph”

Then the big tuna…The earliest known account of the first vision was written in 1831-32 in Joseph Smith's own handwriting. This was the version made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965, published later that same year by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in Joseph Smith's Strange Account of the First Vision. This account had been in the hands of LDS leaders for over 130 years, hidden away in their vaults – presumably because it differs so greatly from the official version. In this account, Smith claimed to be 16 years old and that he already knew that all churches were wrong from reading the Bible. Joseph sought forgiveness, and it was Jesus alone who visited him and forgave his sins. number three

So out of the ten distinctly different versions of the first vision, 3 were written by him, several were dictated by him or told by him in interviews, and a couple were second hand testimonies. Your point?

On the style of writing....it is evidence he used his knowledge of the KJV bible as his inspiration for his ridiculous fable, and telling that he wrote in that style, and the plagiarism of the KJV within his ancient truth given to him by angels/jesus/god/imagination/great pumpkin...lets look at just a few telling pieces of prima facie (evidence)..

Two problems for the Book of Mormon are the lifting of hundreds of phrases from the King James Version of the Bible and the introduction of New Testament concepts into the Book of Mormon before the time of Christ.

The Old Testament has no mention of Jesus Christ by name, or the Christian concept of baptism, yet these are an integral part of the Nephite religion in the Book of Mormon during the period before Christ. For instance, in approximately 550 BC God instructs the Nephites, "repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son" (2 Nephi: 31:11).

Another Book of Mormon passage supposedly written about 121 BC contains words obviously taken from 1 Corinthians 15:58. It says: "Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his" (Mosiah 5:15). Hundreds of phrases from the Bible have been sprinkled throughout the Book of Mormon to give it the sound of scripture.

Thus, over the last 180 years scholar after scholar has concluded that the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century, not an ancient record. FICTION.

Smith's revelations were first put in book form in 1833, as the Book of Commandments, then reissued in 1835 under the title Doctrine and Covenants. Since additional revelations had been received after the 1833 printing the volume was enlarged. However, most members did not realize that Smith had rewritten a number of his earlier revelations, introducing new doctrines, such as the inclusion of the Melchizedek Priesthood. David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, stated that when it became known that Joseph Smith had changed his revelations, "the result was that some of the members left the church on account of it."

Today the LDS Church claims that in 1829 God sent Peter, James and John to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to ordain them to the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, all early Mormon documents and diaries show that the founding members of the LDS church were not aware of any such claim. This is but one example of the way Smith's doctrines evolved over the fourteen years he acted as prophet.

While the Book of Mormon spoke of the authority that came from the "order of the Son" (Alma 13:9) or the "holy order of God" (Alma 13:18), it was not termed the Melchizedek Priesthood as it is today. In fact, the Book of Mormon spoke of high priests, priests, elders and teachers (Alma 4:7, 20; Alma 13:1-19) as all being of the same priesthood, not two divisions as is currently taught. Contrary to Joseph Smith's History of the Church, the concept of a restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood in 1829 was not taught at the beginning of Mormonism. David Whitmer wrote that it was not taught in 1830. One of the evidences of this is the way Smith rewrote his revelations between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

A Mormon today, like Alla, would point to sections 20, 27, 42 and 68, of the Doctrine and Covenants as evidence that the early members were taught about that priesthood. However, sections 20, 27 and 42 have gone through revision and additions, and Section 68 was not even in the 1833 printing. One reason for these additions was to add concepts about priesthood that were not present in the original.

Another evidence of Smith's evolving story is his rewriting of section 5 of the D&C. In the original 1833 printing, chapter 4 of the Book of Commandments, he was told that the only gift God would give him would be the translation of the Book of Mormon. This was rewritten in 1835 to read that the translation was just the first gift God would give him, thus opening the door for further books of scripture.

In section 7 of the D&C is Joseph Smith's purported translation of a parchment written by John the Beloved. While it is labeled a translation, there is no evidence that Smith ever claimed to have such a record. It is simply a revelation. However, the current version is twice as long as the 1833 Book of Commandments printing (section 6). Thus we are once again faced with the problem of Smith's accuracy in receiving revelation.

Section 8 was also rewritten. In the 1833 printing (section 7) Oliver Cowdery, Smith's scribe, was commended for his gift of working with a divining rod, or "rod of nature," but now the revelation euphemistically refers to Cowdery's "gift of Aaron." Thus Cowdery's earlier involvement with treasure seeking and magic arts is camouflaged by altering a few words.

To no surprise, his "prophesies" failed to come to fruition...

In 1832 Joseph dictated section 84, which was a command to build a temple in Independence, Missouri, known among the Mormons as "Zion" or "New Jerusalem." The temple was to be "reared in this generation," meaning during the life-time of those currently living but that temple has yet to be built. It goes on to command the Mormon bishop to preach the LDS gospel to the citizens of New York, Albany and Boston. If they reject the message, "utter abolishment" awaited them, "for if they do reject these things the hour of their judgment is nigh, and their house shall be left unto them desolate" (D&C 84:4-5,114-115, Sept. 1832). Clearly, those cities did not embrace Mormonism, and no such calamity befell the northern cities. Rolleyes

But I digress, over to you, let the tap dancing begin Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-08-2015, 08:28 AM
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
Speaking of fraud.....

In 1835 a traveling curiosity peddler of Egyptian mummies arrived in the small town of Kirtland, Ohio. He caught the attention of Joseph Smith (1805-44), the controversial founder of the Mormon religion. Smith secured a large sum of money from his followers ($2,400, or $60,000 in today’s dollars) to purchase four Egyptian mummies with scrolls of papyri. Smith announced that he could do what no one else could do: translate the ancient hieroglyphics. Smith asserted that the papyri contained the writings of the biblical prophets Abraham and Joseph. He titled his translation of the papyri the “Book of Abraham.” Smith’s translation contained several images from the papyri and in 1851 was published as part of the Mormon scripture called “The Pearl of Great Price.”

The surviving papyri have been translated into English in their entirety. In analyzing and translating the ancient texts, Robert K. Ritner, foremost American scholar of Egyptology, has determined that they were prepared for deceased men and women in Thebes during the Greco-Roman period. They have nothing to do with Abraham, Joseph, or a planet called Kolob, as Smith had claimed.

“Except for those willfully blind,” writes Professor Ritner of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, “the case is closed.” In his new book, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, he also accuses two scholars of Egyptology at Mormon-owned Brigham Young University of borrowing and distorting his own writings in trying to defend Smith’s interpretations as authentically translated Egyptian. Smith’s translation narrative tells of a young Abraham who is about to become a human sacrifice at the request of his father. It also tells of a human pre-mortal existence and teaches that the Egyptian pharaohs were cursed by God (leading to the Mormon priesthood restrictions on African Americans). It also established the Mormon theology for multiple gods.

For members of the Mormon religion, Smith’s “translation” remains a product of their faith. Laugh out load

ah you gotta love mythology....and those gullible enough to embrace it...like Alla

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-08-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
Look, if there are more than 10 versions of the First Vision written by Smith himself then I am interested to discuss them.
I want to discuss only what Joseph Smith said/wrote himself.
People make mistakes. If someone wants to re-tell my story I do not expect it to be 100% the same/accurate.
So, I see no problem with more then 10 different versions that are re-told by different people.
If you have nothing to say we can move on.
Perhaps, we can talk about video.
Agree?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 09:14 AM
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
One more thing. I already told you. I had a dream(a vision). I have never told about this dream exactly the same way to different people. Even if Joseph Smith told about his experience in different ways I can understand why he did it.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2015 09:53 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
(04-08-2015 09:04 AM)Alla Wrote:  Look, if there are more than 10 versions of the First Vision written by Smith himself then I am interested to discuss them.
I want to discuss only what Joseph Smith said/wrote himself.
People make mistakes. If someone wants to re-tell my story I do not expect it to be 100% the same/accurate.
So, I see no problem with more then 10 different versions that are re-told by different people.
If you have nothing to say we can move on.
Perhaps, we can talk about video.
Agree?

(04-08-2015 09:04 AM)Alla Wrote:  Look, if there are more than 10 versions of the First Vision written by Smith himself then I am interested to discuss them.
I want to discuss only what Joseph Smith said/wrote himself.
People make mistakes. If someone wants to re-tell my story I do not expect it to be 100% the same/accurate.
So, I see no problem with more then 10 different versions that are re-told by different people.
If you have nothing to say we can move on.
Perhaps, we can talk about video.
Agree?
The church has gone through ten versions of the “first vision”…which is the point.

“I want to discuss only what Joseph Smith said/wrote himself.”

Sure, here you go….for the third time:

1) So important is this vision that it is published as scripture to the Mormon people in a book known as The Pearl of Great Price. This official version was taken from the early LDS publication Times and Seasons, which originally published it on April 1, 1842 (pp. 748-749). Joseph Smith wrote this account of the vision in 1838, 18 years after it supposedly happened.

2) On March 1, 1842, the Times and Seasons published contents of a letter written by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth. This was published one full month before the account that is accepted as the official version today. In this one, Joseph Smith did not give his age. He mentioned no evil power overcoming him, and he said two personages visited him, though he never identifies them. It is significant that he did not mention the evil power that played so prominently in the story and also that he omitted that the personages visiting him were supposedly God the Father and Jesus Christ.

3) The earliest known account of the first vision was written in 1831-32 in Joseph Smith's own handwriting. This was the version made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965, published later that same year by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in Joseph Smith's Strange Account of the First Vision. This account had been in the hands of LDS leaders for over 130 years, hidden away in their vaults – presumably because it differs so greatly from the official version. In this account, Smith claimed to be 16 years old and that he already knew that all churches were wrong from reading the Bible. Joseph sought forgiveness, and it was Jesus alone who visited him and forgave his sins.

Discuss away…..

This is three distinctly different versions written by the founder himself. When you dig yourself out of that hole we can go onto the plethora of other information I have endeavored to provide you….the DNA issue, the infamous "book of Abraham", and the plagiarism of KJV. I have only just begun child, I warned you…I know Mormonism. Which level of heaven are you destined to go to I wonder? I bet you think Celestial Laughat

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-08-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
(04-08-2015 09:14 AM)Alla Wrote:  One more thing. I already told you. I had a dream(a vision). I have never told about this dream exactly the same way to different people. Even if Joseph Smith told about his experience in different ways I can understand why he did it.

Gasp

oh my, perhaps you are a PROPHET of god!!!!

I have dreams too sweety, I dreamt the other night about pumpkin pie, perhaps that was a vision sent to me from the Great Pumpkin. I told one person it was pumpkin custard pie, and another it was pumpkin spice pie, and yet another it was pumpkin bread......none of which makes it a vision from god, or me a prophet.

Your "personal experience" is created by your mind, your interpretation of self generated neurological flatulence, and because you think the drivel propagated by Joseph Smith has some iota of truth, then you think it was a VISION.

NO, if god spoke to me, I would tell it as it was given, not change major portions of it as I go along. That is what charlatans do...and Joseph Smith was the very definition of a charlatan.

I will check back later, I have research papers to write.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-08-2015, 10:20 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2015 10:23 AM by Alla.)
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
(04-08-2015 09:43 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Discuss away…..
This is three distinctly different versions written by the founder himself. When you dig yourself out of that hole we can go onto the plethora of other information I have endeavored to provide you….the DNA issue, and the plagiarism of KJV. I have ony begun child, I warned you…I know Mormonism.
Thumbsup
Good.
1)I do not see contradiction between these accounts.
2)It is common for people not to tell the whole account about an experience. Sometimes we can tell only some parts of it. It depends on what we want to emphasize and to whom we speak.
About third account where it says that JS was 16 years old. I do not know why. But I can not make any conclusions on what I do not know/do not understand.
But this is such a small error.
Shall we discuss the video? or you have something else to add?
(04-08-2015 09:43 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Which level of heaven are you destined to go to I wonder? I bet you think Celestial Laughat
Offtopic

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: Discussion on the invalidity of Mormonism
(04-08-2015 09:14 AM)Alla Wrote:  One more thing. I already told you. I had a dream(a vision). I have never told about this dream exactly the same way to different people. Even if Joseph Smith told about his experience in different ways I can understand why he did it.

So, what would it take to actually convince you he was just a liar ?
His wife thought he was a liar. She understood that he just wanted to have sex with other women, including her best friends. If there is no point at which your credulity would be strained beyond repair, then there is no point of even discussing anything with you, as you have no standards. You will buy into absolutely anything they tell you, wouldn't you ? You have no critical judgement at all about any of this.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: