Huh. Sorry, just... huh? There's a post on here about a person cooking a mormon couple stew/he told them the recipe, they were shocked there was red wine and told him to basically never cook for them again. Maybe I'm mixing things up...

Some people interpret it in an extreme way, but the church does forbid foods cooked with alcohol as long as the finished meal isn't alcoholic itself

How do you mean? If you are referring to the controversial 14 year old bride, her father married her to Joseph without his permission, and they never lived in the same house. Their marriage was on paper only. His other wives were over the age of consent, though he obtained with the youngest wives anyway. If you want to go that route, Joseph also had a wife around 55, far older than him.

LOL "poor innocent victim and grown man, Joseph Smith, was married to a fourteen year old girl today. Sources near to Smith say it was an accident and he fell down"

Care to explain what you mean?

I think it's pretty clear that I mean he married an underage girl. Sadly this forum does not enable me to draw a diagram for you.

Again, the marriage was on paper only, they never lived in the same house or spent any nights together.

According to...? What record was kept of where she lived? What of the multiple 16- and 17-year-olds Smith also married?

According to Joseph, the girl's father, and the girl herself. She recorded in her journal. 16 was the legal age of consent back then, so a 16 year old being married was common. Nevertheless, I don't know about each individual case, but again, Joseph also had wives over 50, so he wasn't practicing polygamy to get with minors

So according to an underage girl and the guy who sold her in the first place, it's all kosher? And that's your idea of proof, is it?

Vix, my friend, the weight of proof is on you as the accuser, not me as the defense

Why would he come to the Americas to only specifically see one guy? Why doesn’t anyone else have a record of this?

We believe that the resurrected Jesus Christ showed himself to many people all over the world. We are aware of other instances but have an actual record of the one where he appeared in the Americas in the Book of Mormon(actual=if you actually believe it). It's in 3Nephi chapter 11. Even if you don't believe in God or if you don't believe in the LDS church it is at least fascinating to read. I'm happy to answer any questions as long as they are genuine a.k.a. Not looking for a fight. That would waste both of our time.

I just looked up 3 Nephi 11, it doesn't mention America at all. It *does*, however, pull the absolute classic of cult beliefs at verse 29, where Jesus says you're not allowed to ask questions: "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."

That says nothing about questions. That says that the spirit of contention - or a heated argument - is not of him. That has nothing to do with questions. Joseph Smith himself quoted the scripture "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God". The current LDS prophet has given a few speeches specifically on the subject of questioning the gospel and searching for answers.

Again, you can contend with me on that point if you wish - presumably you got special dispensation which allows contention with nonbelievers...

I'm not angry at you. I have no reason to try to anger you. This is a discussion, not an argument. I'm not trying to stir up anything.

I didn't say you were angry at me. I said you were contending with me. Contending means making points in a discussion. So since you are contending with me, that is a contentious position. Sorry, I don't make the English language.

The word, contentious has multiple meanings. One of which is an angry agreement. Considering it is used in conjunction with a phrase about not stirring up anger, we can safely assume it is referring to that definition.

That's an equivocation and you know it.

Do you really, honestly think that Jesus was saying that Christians should never disagree with anything? Do you really believe that? Jesus himself contended with people when he challenged the beliefs of the day. It is incredibly obvious that in the context and time period, contentious means to stir up anger, as described in the literal following sentence. Please stop nitpicking a point that was so incredibly jejune to start with

Do you really, honestly think that a rule being stupid precludes a religion from prescribing it? Do you really believe that? Exodus contains rules against wearing two different types of cloth together and Leviticus demands the death penalty for anyone who uncovers their head. Idiotic impracticality is no boundary against religious imperatives.

The thing is, you are intentionally misinterpreting the scripture to bother me. I have no doubt many religions have over the top rules for vague reasons. Some would probably say the same about the Mormon church. But the thing is, nobody is disallowing questions in my church, and neither did Jesus say that to ask questions was wrong. Jesus himself questioned things. His apostle questioned things. Quit trying to misconstrue this scripture as a commandment to never ask a question or disagree with anything ever

I think you'll find that interpretation is all anyone can do with scripture, because no human can truly know the mind of god. Quit pretending that your interpretation is necessarily superior to any other human interpretation.

Take your own advice. You have absolutely no way of knowing you are right, but you continue to postulate that you are. I believe my interpretation would be correct out of common sense and the context in which it is used, and the person using it. Where's your justification? Honestly why are you killing yourself on this hill?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

The way I know my interpretation is correct is because it's based on logic and etymology. "Common sense" and religion aren't a great mix, so if I were you I wouldn't plant my flag in that anthill.

That's not what he's saying at all. He's just saying don't be contentious.....

Sorry, did you just disagree with me? Because if so, you're being contentious

I don't think you know what contention is. A disagreement or a debate is not contention. A heated argument is contention. It basically says that people shouldn't try to anger each other in a dispute

You can contend with me on that point all you like - although that is, by definition, a contentious thing to do - but it doesn't change the fact that 3 Nephi 11 does not mention America at all.

Considering the whole book of 3rd Nephi is set in America, it's pretty safe to assume it's there.

Considering that you haven't provided scriptural proof of that, it's pretty safe to assume it's not there.

I'm happy to provide, but even without searching the scriptures it's pretty straightforward. The plates were discovered in the American continent, and they detail the record of the people there. So this experience, recorded as in the same place, would still be in America

Nope. The Venerable Bede wrote a book about the temple of Solomon, but he never went there. It makes no logical sense to claim that a book is necessarily set in the same place it is written, especially when that place was completely unknown when Jesus was alive.

You really got to stop Vix Spiderthrust

That's not what the word means buddy

It is mate. Contending with someone is contentious. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

Contentious, adjective: causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial, or, involving heated argument, or, (of a person) given to arguing or provoking argument. Obviously, Jesus wasn't saying that you should never disagree with anyone, he's literally saying don't stir up anger

con·​tend | \ kən-ˈtend \ contended; contending; contends Definition of contend intransitive verb 1: to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : STRUGGLE contended with the problems of municipal government will contend for the championship this year 2: to strive in debate : ARGUE

You'll notice the word is contentious, not contend.

You'll notice that "contentious" is a cognate of "contend".

Hi S.B. happy to meet someone who is willing to answer questions. I get that you are following Jesus and (I don't know how to word it properly, sorry) living in the way he wants you to. But, how do you know Jesus showed himself to you? Is it in words, thoughts, dreams? And, how can you be sure it really was Jesus showing you your future path and not some random dream?

Hi My O My! We do not have pictures, but have writing about experiences of our ancestors. We feel the presence through thoughts. There have also been times when prophets have had dreams to guide them and the church. It is the feeling that comes with it. They would also sometimes show them with signs. They would show in a dream about something that would happen, then it would happen. Thank you for asking!

Thank you so much S. B.! I love to see somebody standing up for our religon

honestly, no clue. but i wasn’t alive then, and again, there is a lot of stuff we don’t know. if you have any more questions i am happy to try to answer them best i can

How come god chose to reveal his only truth to an illiterate man who had previous convictions for fraud? Surely the absolute bare minimum for revealing the truth in the form of the written word is choosing someone who can read.

Two bits on the fraud conviction - 1. There is no evidence whether or not Joseph was convicted by a court on his sole count of disorderly conduct 2. This charge was brought up after the book had been translated but before it was widely published

I'm sure that's what you're told you should believe. In the real world, however, the court system keeps quite detailed records, and Smith was found guilty of fraudulent banking in 1837.

I was discussing The charge in 1826, not in 1837. That would be after the visions and book of mormon, which would not make sense as you referred to "previous convictions of fraud"

Ah, so you admit that Smith was convicted of fraud AFTER he founded your religion. What does that say about how your religion works as a bulwark of morality...?

Joseph wasn't a perfect man, nobody is, and his fraud charge was due to his failed banking attempt, not the church

I didn't say it was about the church. What I said was that despite being entrusted with a vision from god, he went on to be a liar and a thief. Not exactly the same career path as St Paul, is it?

Sure he made his mistake, but Paul the apostle didn't have a happy start either. He started out as a total dirtbag. But nobody is perfect, and sometimes people screw up immensely. In my mind, it doesn't matter if Joseph has done bad things. At the end of the day, I know my church is true, and I know that I can do a lot of good by staying in it. So even if the past was screwy, I'll still be a member now. I felt what I've felt, and little could dissuade me. I am sure you are set in your beliefs about the church as well

The point is that Paul the apostle had a conversion from dirtbag to saint when he got religion. Joseph Smith's conversion went from dirtbag to bigger dirtbag.

You can hardly judge Joseph for a single or even a few mistakes. He did a lot of good too. Either way, lets give this a rest alright. I'm set in my position, and you are set in yours. And that's ok

No, I absolutely can judge him for the crimes he committed. Try to imagine that you had had an actual vision from god, which among other things gave you the lowdown on how sinners were treated in the afterlife. Would YOU then go on to commit crimes, knowing full well that it would separate you from god? The reasonable conclusion is that Smith was either a liar (and he was convicted for fraud) or a moron. Which one makes sense to you?

I would say that Smith was often persecuted unjustly for his beliefs. He was either a prophet or a total madman for doing the things he did, and for sacrificing how he did. Why on Earth would anyone willingly choose the life he lead?

Why does any cult leader start a cult? Sex and money. Simple as that.

Not sure why you're getting down voted for expressing your opinion during this conversation, here's an update to offset the a*****e.

Jesus came to America in ancient times after his Resurrection. The record, the golden plates, was seen by 11 different witnesses, some of which actually left the church, but all of whom held until death, despite their disagreements with Joseph, that they had seen the plates.

Literally every single religion the world over has ONE person who "started" it that believes god (or whatever deity) came to that ONE person, in some form, hence the start of that religion. The LDS faith is certainly not the only one where this is present, nor the first for that matter. Where does the catholic church teach that the bible came from? It always starts with ONE person, literally, always.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges that the Gospels had four different authors...

The catholic church acknowledges that they don't know who actually wrote the gospels and that they are compilations.

M'point is that, contrary to AnkleByter's nonsense assertion, no mainstream Christians believe the Bible was written by one man. You would, in fact, have to be quite remarkably dense to adopt that position.

Joseph Smith didn't write the book of Mormon, he translated it.

BUZZ! Article of faith. Smith wrote the book. You can claim it was divinely inspired if you wish, but you cannot ask the rest of us to say he "translated" it. The Bible is said to be written regardless of how much of it is supposedly transcribed from direct revelation.

Joseph Smith didn't even actually write the book, he told some people acting as scribes to write it down as he read it. I'm not asking you to say anything, I'm just expressing my point of view