James makes it clear that God does not lie.

The Bible writer in the New Testament book of James makes the claim.

But that sharply contradicts other elements of the Bible that are clear—God lies.

1 Kings 22:19-23, Genesis 2:17, Isaiah 7:1-7 are examples of God lying.

These examples of God lying you cite are also instances which are dependent on interpretation.

From apologists… “These examples of Smith making false prophecies you cite are also instances which are dependent on interpretation.”

Its clear God lied in the Bible.

 

The point of Deuteronomy 18 is that God not lie and so if a claimed prophet tells a lie, discernable from making a prediction that does not happen, then this man is not representing God.

The Bible contradicts the Bible, God lies in the Bible, and false prophecies are made in the Bible.

 

One of the good claims in the Book of Mormon is that God cannot lie in Enos. If the Bible is not as clear as we would like on this issue, the Book of Mormon is very clear.

God cannot lie about Christian forgiveness-- through Christ. Per Enos in the Book of Mormon,

5 And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed. 6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away. 7 And I said: Lord, how is it done? 8 And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen.

 

 If I were you, I would not believe everything you read in Chronicles or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter. Jeremiah was right when he said that the scribes had falsified the records.

It is a tenet of belief in LDS Christianity that the scriptures are imperfect. LDS Christianity does not accept perfect scriptures.

 

I don't think I referred to wicked rituals although that would be a good term for the sealing of a woman married to another man to a church leader in which the church leader gained the approval to have sex with this woman. Holy adultery found in the Mormon church was indeed based on such wicked rituals, but they are certainly magic.

“Holy adultery?” Relations of a Biblical marriage in polygamy would not be adultery. Per the Bible. Where polygamy is authorized.

Magic, wicked. You are purposefully using hyperbolic and loaded language.

 

Salvation comes from records of ordinances performed by suitable authority and saying the right words and engaging in the right rituals.

Records of ordinances? Or the ordinance themselves.

Is Baptism an ordinance…?

Rituals are not necessarily bad if they are used as a method of presentation of an eternal principle which leads men to God and righteousness. The problem we get is when the rituals themselves become the source of salvation as suggested in Section 128.

Baptism being required –an ordinance being required—is Biblical.

Read John 3 in context.

Apologists will say you have to take Smiths prophecies in context, too.

Its clear in the New Testament that baptism is a requirement. A must-do.

 

It is not surprising that Jesus, who was Jewish would participate in such a ritual. Neither is it surprising that his Jewish followers would continue the same. This kind of ritual can be a very good thing as long as one realizes that it is not the source of the gift of God but more a teaching technique which illustrates eternal principles.

LDS Christians will say their Christ-centered religious worship and ritual is focused on Christ worship.

 

 

Smith deceived his wife till 1843 about his numerous holy adulteries.

Who did Smith have physical relations with that he was not “sealed” to in a polygamist relationship?

You have my curiosity piqued.

Of course, according to the Bible, Smiths wife has no say in who he is in polygamist relationships with.

 

I think this was fraud although he also perpetrated a fraud on the membership of the church by constantly denouncing polygamy when he was engaging in it.

God lied. In the Bible. Smith meets the Biblical definition of prophet.

Apologists say that since Smiths life was in danger, it justifies the misrepresentations on polygamy.

 

You are right. The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy but the Bible certainly does not. It only condemns the practice of "multiplying wives" by the king.

Polygamy is normative in the Bible. Polygamy is codified in the Bible.

 

I will just say that the Jesus Smith describes in Section 132 bears no resemblance to the Jesus I read of in the gospels.

Smith uses 132 to testify of Christ… Coming to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ leads to exaltation. D&C 132:21–24

I have a problem with polygamy. In 132. And the Bible. Polygamy is bad. But the Bible justifies it, and Smith meets the Biblical definition of Biblical prophet.

“Section 132 goes against the Bible!” No. Not at all. It testifies of Christ and justifies polygamy. Things the Bible does.

 

Smith is useless as a guide to bring us to Christ.

Smith testifies of Christ. "Christ Himself has assuredly risen from the dead; and if He has risen from the dead, He will, by His power, bring all men to stand before Him." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-3?lang=eng

 

He will take us in the opposite direction.

This is pants on head wrong. Smith was clear: follow Christ.

 

 Smith taught a select few to take additional wives thus violating their marriage vows.

Biblical polygamy was not violating marriage vows.

Biblical marriage includes plural wives and concubines.

Smith taught polygamy, yes. But the House of Israel is a polygamist group.

 

He made this up. He did not get it from Jesus who strengthened the commandment to not commit adultery.

Relations of a physical intimate nature in a polygamist sealing would not be adultery in a Biblical sense.

Polygamy is in the Bible.

 

 

Jesus describes God as our Father in Heaven. Smith's doctrine makes God anything but a father.

This does not make any sense. Smith taught others to follow Christ and testified of God “our Father in Heaven.”

I re-read this multiple times and it gave me a headache.

 

The Book of Mormon does indeed give a good protestant description of Christianity. I do not believe in its historicity, but I think it does a very good job presenting the traditional doctrine of Christ.

Its clear that the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants testifies of Christ more than the Bible. There is no other way around it.

The Bible has error, hyperbole, pseudepigrapha. People still use it as an ethical and moral guide.

 

 

Smith would have made fewer mistakes if he had followed The Book of Mormon rather than foolish proof texts based on the King James Bible.

Smith used the Bible as his ethical and moral guide and critical historians say that Smith taught more from the Bible than the Book of Mormon.

 

As to polygamy, he should have listened to his conscience rather than trying to justify this evil practice from the mythology found in the Bible. There really is good reason to think that Abraham did not even exist. Even if he did exist, there is no good reason to believe mythology about him is a better arbiter of good and evil than our own conscience.

Smith would not have known that Moses was a mythical addition to the Bible. Smith would have thought the Bible was literally true.

 

As to Smith's personal life, if you did what he did, you would be excommunicated and likely put in jail.

Smiths personal life was based in his using the Bible as an ethical and moral guide.