Mormon founder Joseph Smith wed 40 wives

[Stavro]

Whatever Mr. Smith did in the past is in the past, the fact that he was a religious leader doesn't mean we should dwell on his sins, which have been paid for in his death. (Romans 6:23)

 

In regard to the church itself, we don't need to dig into century-old records to determine the truthfulness of their beliefs, their current and ongoing actions are more than sufficient to make that determination.

[Hartley]

Whatever Mr. Smith did in the past is in the past, the fact that he was a religious leader doesn't mean we should dwell on his sins, which have been paid for in his death. (Romans 6:23)

In regard to the church itself, we don't need to dig into century-old records to determine the truthfulness of their beliefs, their current and ongoing actions are more than sufficient to make that determination.

The churches admision of this after years of cover up is current news as is their willingness to blame God for getting it wrong ang the changing his mind.

Hartley

[Stavro]

The churches admision of this after years of cover up is current news as is their willingness to blame God for getting it wrong ang the changing his mind.

 

I completely agree that the admission of the cover-up is newsworthy, and could lead to revealing much worse things hidden in their closet, but some of the posts seem to cross the line into focusing on the man instead of the religion.

[sunshine]

The only problem with picking at the ridiculous aspects of things that organisations like the Mormons and SDA did over 100 years ago is that you invite criticism about things like Russell's pyramidology or wild statements about aluminium and vaccinations that the brothers made in the twenties.

 

No I don't think that is true.  There is nothing that Russell did that was shameful or abhorrent morally.  We are very proud of our spiritual heritage, and acknowledge theological mistakes made in the past.  As for statements that may have been outside of the scope of scripture, such as those (often when examined, quoting authorities of the time, rather than actually promoting them directly) many of them were in no way "wild" when you do your research.

 

Jehovah has been very careful about those he has used to promote the work, and although he could not for lack of availability use perfect men, he chose men that lead excemplary lives and who ensured that those that did not were expulsed from the organization.  There's no comparison with theological errors that were cleared up through further study and unscriptural lifestyles by those that have the responsibility of taking the lead and a reportedly consciouse effort to keep those lifestyles secret.

Edited November 12, 2014 by sunshine

[seagull]

No I don't think that is true.  There is nothing that Russell did that was shameful or abhorrent morally.  We are very proud of our spiritual heritage, and acknowledge theological mistakes made in the past.  As for statements that may have been outside of the scope of scripture, such as those (often when examined, quoting authorities of the time, rather than actually promoting them directly) many of them were in no way "wild" when you do your research.

 

Jehovah has been very careful about those he has used to promote the work, and although he could not for lack of availability use perfect men, he chose men that lead excemplary lives and who ensured that those that did not were expulsed from the organization.  There's no comparison with theological errors that were cleared up through further study and unscriptural lifestyles by those that have the responsibility of taking the lead and a reportedly consciouse effort to keep those lifestyles secret.

 

I have no argument that theological changes are acknowledged and nothing I have said is directing criticism at the organisation or individual brothers then or now.  My contribution to the thread is not to discuss the merits of points of theological change or things that have been said in the past, simply to point out that there are aspects of our history which can be (and are) picked on by anyone who wishes to try a discredit a line of argument we might make about changes in the theology of other organisations.

 

I understand your point about the context of what was written in the past but context does not matter when one has an agenda.  I also understand that it might be considered a little unfair to describe some statements as "wild" but I think the society has had it's hands bitten enough with regard to making statements about what has a best turned out to be bad science, at worst downright quackery.  This is why the publications have not contained anything close to the sort of things mentioned in the 20s for as long as I can remember.  This is why pretty much any choice of medical treatment is down to conscience and never commented on unless it's directly related to scriptural principles.

[Allabord4Jah]

I guess he was trying to catch up with Solomon. 

[Dustparticle]

I guess he was trying to catch up with Solomon. 

LOL

[well]

I guess he was trying to catch up with Solomon. 

 

Still can't beat him!   

[RaymondG]

Originally posted by Stavro

Whatever Mr. Smith did in the past is in the past, the fact that he was a religious leader doesn't mean we should dwell on his sins, which have been paid for in his death. (Romans 6:23).....

I would have used (and regularly do...) Romans 6:7 there.

[Stavro]

I would have used (and regularly do...) Romans 6:7 there.

 

While I hope that Romans 6:7 applies to Mr. Smith, he most certainly does fall under Romans 6:23, just as every other sinful human does.

[crazylee]

Very simply, the LDS doctrines like polygamy were taught as direct revelation by God to his prophet (they're still viewed as such, only God has now revealed something different). To question it was on par with questioning Scripture. Smith's history is full of such 'revelations' that worked to his advantage. Before he was murdered, he was even working on 'correcting' the Bible, writing himself into the book of Genesis and so forth. Ellen White of the SDA was less extreme, but founded her authority on the very same principle; she was a prophetess of God!

Russell was among those that rejected all of that as religious nonsense. He claimed only the Bible as authoritative from God. To compare him in any way to Smith or White is like comparing Isaac Newton to the alchemists and magicians of his day; Newton likewise held some views on science that in hindsight are bizarre, but with just a little historical perspective you realize he was extremely reasonable and ahead of his times. Same goes for Russell, et al. Connecting Jehovah's Witnesses with Mormons is what the 'anti-cult' industry tries desperately to do in order to marginalize Witnesses; don't ever let them get away with that tired old garbage.

 

 

Newton the Alchemist

Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth-century mathematician and scientist, though not generally known as an alchemist, practiced the art with a passion.    http://alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

 

I guess it was true!

[Brother_Bliss]

Cor blimey!  I go to work for the day and come back to this!

 

I owe you a public apology.

 

I've been gone a long long time, and am just getting back into the swing of things here. At first glance, it appeared that a topic was started and immediately steered off-topic towards some common poo that the aposta-monkey's like to sling around. When I should have steered the thread back on topic by engaging in some conversation, I violated my own Forum Policy by speaking harshly towards you, and for that I am sorry.

[seagull]

I owe you a public apology.

 

I've been gone a long long time, and am just getting back into the swing of things here. At first glance, it appeared that a topic was started and immediately steered off-topic towards some common poo that the aposta-monkey's like to sling around. When I should have steered the thread back on topic by engaging in some conversation, I violated my own Forum Policy by speaking harshly towards you, and for that I am sorry.

 

Don't be silly.  If you felt I was being too negative or going off-topic then it's your place to call me out.  No problems at this end, it's what a discussion forum is all about!

[Dan A.]

I owe you a public apology.

 

I've been gone a long long time, and am just getting back into the swing of things here. At first glance, it appeared that a topic was started and immediately steered off-topic towards some common poo that the aposta-monkey's like to sling around. When I should have steered the thread back on topic by engaging in some conversation, I violated my own Forum Policy by speaking harshly towards you, and for that I am sorry.

I was sooooooo tempted to jump on this thread but I definitely have bias when it comes to playing in the mud with LDS doctrines......

"Fish are friends not food"

http://youtu.be/-SmWPMv5xIk

[rocket]

I was sooooooo tempted to jump on this thread but I definitely have bias when it comes to playing in the mud with LDS doctrines......

 

Dan, since you live in predominately Mormon territory, a good topic to start in the "Our Meetings, Ministry, and Life as a Christian" Forum would be one with tips on what works in reasoning with Mormons. I have found that most heavily rely on their prophet to interpret the Bible for them.

[palmhat]

Dan, since you live in predominately Mormon territory, a good topic to start in the "Our Meetings, Ministry, and Life as a Christian" Forum would be one with tips on what works in reasoning with Mormons. I have found that most heavily rely on their prophet to interpret the Bible for them.

"Thus it is written, so let it be done!", please, Dan.