Guitarsoup

What exactly is the one true Bible and why is it the one true version...

Why does an athiest care?

Just curious why it is the one true Bible since I can find dozens of different Bibles on Amazon, B&N and Half Priced Books.

It is his way of saying he doesn't know the answer.

I do, but it seems pointless to argue something that an Athiest doesnt believe in nor cares about.


Speaking of which, I owned you a couple posts ago, care to write about that?

Soup, I don't think you have ever had the crap beat out of you. Or seen your younger brother have it done to him. You would know that there is a combination of emotions, a desire to protect yourself and him, and anger as what has been done to your innocent brother.

Check your history, he was only able to wound a couple of them. Does that fact the God hates iniquity make him a murderer?

You are not the bearer of bad news; just no news.

P.S. Did you read the post on the real story of the tar and feathering of Joseph and the suspected part that Alexander Campbell may have played in it?

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 4/6/2006 12:14a).]

quote:

---

Just curious why it is the one true Bible since I can find dozens of different Bibles on Amazon, B&N and Half Priced Books.

---

Yet you obviously haven't read any of them.

You know Greek and Hebrew? Then you can read the original versions.

quote:

---

Soup, I don't think you have ever had the crap beat out of you. Or seen your younger brother have it done to him. You would know that there is a combination of emotions, a desire to protect yourself and him, and anger as what has been done to your innocent brother.

---

Having those emotions are normal. Shooting people in anger is sinful. That is not the act of a martyr. He sought vengence for his brother's death and I think we all could understand and identify with those emotions. However it is sinful to act in the way he did.

quote:

---

. Does that fact the God hates iniquity make him a murderer?

---

Smith is not God and does not have the ability to administer God's justice. They have nothing to do with one another.

quote:

---

P.S. Did you read the post on the real story of the tar and feathering of Joseph and the suspected part that Alexander Campbell may have played in it?

---

I read it, and there is absolutely nothing to show it. All I saw was your attempt to slander the name of my family with absolutely no proof of anything. You acting in the absence of knowledge or honor isnt something that is especially new to this board.

On the plus side, at least you finally admit the Church of Christ predates the LDS.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 4/6/2006 12:51a).]

Where did I ever make the false admission that the Church of Christ predated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The fact that I recognize the Campbellites eventually took the name "Church of Christ" is not an admission of that pre-existence because it would be false.. I just wanted to make sure that every one was aware of the dastardy deeds that were done and the Church that was so intimately involved. Few people would recognize it now in this day and time as the name "Campbellites" means nothing to most people.

You FORGET Joseph had two more friends in the room with him that he was trying also to save. They weren't dead yet in spite of the mobs efforts.

There is significantly more circumstantial evidence to link Alexander Campbell to the tar and feathering of Joseph than a lot of the accusations that you have made about Joseph. It was well known that Campbell "hated" Joseph Smith. Who knows what suggestions he made to get the Cambellite ministers there to get back at Sidney Rigdon and Joseph. To do something that horrible, you would think they would want to run it by the esteemed leader of the Sect, as there would more than likely be repercussions.

P.S. I think you have done more to dishonor his name when the Church he started, you wouldn't even stay a member.

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 4/6/2006 1:25a).]

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 4/6/2006 2:43a).]

There is ZERO evidence to show that Campbell hated Smith or that he had anything to do with the tarring and feathering. That is just revisionist history from Mormons - something else that you are well known for since your beginnings.

quote:

---

You FORGET Joseph had two more friends in the room with him that he was trying also to save. They weren't dead yet in spite of the mobs efforts.

---

Clearly that isnt the issue. He shot his gun out of hate and anger, not in a valiant fight or martyrdom. He was angry his brother was killed, and we can all understand that - but fighting back against his attackers does not make him noble - as we can see with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.


You still fail to show any evidence of Campbell's participation. You are only providing revisionist history from a Mormon who may or may not have an ax to grind.

Fact is that Campbell kicked out Rigdon - he wasnt mad that Rigdon left. Rigdon advocated small communist societies - something Campbell was strongly against, and Campbell cut their ties.

As Campbell was the dumper - why would he be holding a grudge that someone he kicked out left? Your assertations make no sense, but then again, blatant lies rarely do.

Soupy -what history do you read. Sidney Rigdon was one of Campbell's brightest "luminaries: and Campbell was very upset to learn that Sidney had converted alson with a large nuber of the congregation. There was no "boot" out prior to his conversion.

I guess you were a fly on the wall in the Carthage jail to know what Joseph's motives where. I am sure you would have laid down and let them kill you and your friends without any any resistance.

quote:

---

Soupy -what history do you read. Sidney Rigdon was one of Campbell's brightest "luminaries: and Campbell was very upset to learn that Sidney had converted alson with a large nuber of the congregation. There was no "boot" out prior to his conversion.

---

SidneyRigdon.com shows otherwise.

quote:

---

SR spoke before the annual meeting of the Mahoning Baptist Association, advocating a community of goods be established in the member churches as a major point in the restoration of Apostolic Christianity, similar to the experiment he was then conducting with members of his own congregation in OH; his suggested plan was demolished by Alexander Campbell's speech denouncing communal living for modern congregations

---

He was booted by Campbell in August 1830 and baptized Mormon in the Fall of 1830. You are completely incorrect.

quote:

---

I guess you were a fly on the wall in the Carthage jail to know what Joseph's motives where. I am sure you would have laid down and let them kill you and your friends without any any resistance.

---

I can only go by what Smith's own best friend, John Taylor said. You posted his own words - that when Hyrum was killed, Smith was angry and went and shot the gun through a small crack in the door - three shots of which didnt fire. Taylor said he killed three, you said he didnt. In any event, Taylor clearly describes the anger and rage provoking Smith's attack.

And as much as you want to add this ad hominem to the story, none of really know what any of the others would do in that situation and that really doesnt have anything to do with the story. We know that Jesus is the supreme example for our lives and we know what he did when men came to kill him. We know that Smith did the opposite of what Jesus did.

I wonder what Jesus would have done if they had come to kill the apostles. Remember, they came to "arrest" Christ, NOT kill him at that time. Joseph Smith had already turned himself over to the Governor with the Governor's personal gurantee of safety. He was in Jail. This was a mob with blackened faces to hide their identities and had NO legal standing. Peter had no problem lobing off the ear of one those who came to seize Jesus. Joseph never pretended to be Jesus. He to, was on the road to developing a "Christlike" character; no one, including himself, ever claimed he was perfect. Jesus was perfect. I think even you might detect the difference!

quote:

---

Remember, they came to "arrest" Christ, NOT kill him at that time.

---

Being onmicient, Jesus knew what was going to happen, as evidenced by his marathon prayer that night. He was taken away and was going to be tortured and killed and he knew that, and he prayed for and even healed his captors/attackers.

quote:

---

This was a mob with blackened faces to hide their identities and had NO legal standing.

---

I agree. They were wrong for doing that, and I am not disputing that.

quote:

---

Peter had no problem lobing off the ear of one those who came to seize Jesus.

---

And Jesus rebuked him for that. Peter was WRONG for doing that, just as Smith was wrong for firing his gun in vengence.

No Smith wasnt perfect, nor was he a Martyr.

You say vengenance, historians and everyone else say "self defense"!

Read Taylor's account. Bring the thread with Taylor's account back up. I specifically brought to light the parts where Taylor makes it sound like he was angry and seeking vengence. And this is the hand of his best friend.

I am very familiar with John Taylor's account and Willard Richard's. A firm, resolute expression can denote many things.

Well, back to the original thread, I would not want to judge anything without all the facts. That is exactly why we have a jury system and not a lynch mob.

Here here!!

I hate when threads get hijacked, lets get back to what may be the reason why she flipped out...

It's tough being a mother and having to accept the role of preachers wife is something that would tax any women not to mention the expectations that are put upon her. Some women can handle it while others can't and it is sad that she could not easily turn to her fellow churchmembers for help and support. Imagine the shame and gossip that must be present in her church that led her to snap instead of reaching out for help.

quote:

---

I wonder what Jesus would have done if they had come to kill the apostles.

---

That statement is very telling to your understanding about Jesus. Incidentally, I do understand why you would imply what you did. However, it still shows that your understanding about Jesus, his character, and who he is does not parallel biblical teaching.