Thread 18133632

>btfos the protestants
>btfos the catholics
>btfos the orthodox
Joseph-sama.... i kneel...

>>18133632 (OP)
>Dies a bitch's death after getting btfo by his own retardation
lmao

>>18133632 (OP)
Meme religion with no truth in it.

>>18133632 (OP)
His penis is repeatedly being flayed layer by layer in hell for eternity for his flagrant adultery; and especially for claiming God told him to be an adulterer.
Perhaps he is also being mocked in other personal ways for his assumption of being a god.

The phenomenon of a charismatic schizo suddenly announcing that he's a divine figure from the mythology he was raised with isn't new or weird.
Sure, sometimes it's a hobo or fent-head or something having an obvious schizophrenic episode, but it happens to upper middle class boomer tards too.
How come it sticks? How do so many people fail to apply this pattern to history? They're just garden-variety schizos. How do people fall for a personality cult even if it's 150 years old? You can find this shit on any streetcorner in philadelphia

>>18134012
It was all the rage in JS's time, and to be honest, he was one who was selling a pretty good deal. Who wouldn't want to sign up to fuck pussy and achieve godhood?

>>18134131
Luther was a coomer himself, and it's actually pretty blatant that polygamy was a factor in what tore apart David's and Solomon's lineage. Solomon had like 700 wives and it all turned to shit.

>>18133632 (OP)
I would rank it as possibility of it being true religion: Western Nicene Christianity > Mormonism > Non Nicene Western Christianity > Islam > Scientology > Orthodox.

>>18134154
That's not why their regimes fell. David slept with a woman who was married to another man.

Solomon allowed, his foreign wives to worship other gods. And later joined them.

That could have happened even if he had one wife. He marries an Egyptian princess, she asks him to build a small altar so she can worship he people's gods.
If they acted like how you and modern Christians did with religious tolerance he would have faced the same punishment.

>>18134238
>That's not why their regimes fell. David slept with a woman who was married to another man.
And where do you think he got that appetite from? Would he have done that if he wasn't already sampling various female flesh in the first place? The problem is that if you combine kingship with that type of "picking from the stock" because you can, that would naturally be the result. David repented, but there were still consequences. His children from different mothers were at each others throats, and one even led to murder after the other molested the half-sister. Key word being half-sister. The polygamy didn't lead to smooth sailing.
>Solomon allowed, his foreign wives to worship other gods. And later joined them.
Which isn't a counterpoint to my argument? It only supports it.

>>18134160
Just treat the Book of Mormon as it is supposed to be treated, another Apocalypse after the order of Revelation

>>18134154
>it's actually pretty blatant that polygamy was a factor in what tore apart David's and Solomon's lineage
>Solomon had like 700 wives and it all turned to shit
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

>>18134272
>And where do you think he got that appetite from?

From being a man. Are you that dumb that you think people in monogamous nations who were never married neve did something similar to David where they slept with another man's wife, killed the man. Then they could have their love as their ONE wife. Are you saying God would be ok with David's actions if David had 0 wives when he was sleeping with Bathsehba?

>Which isn't a counterpoint to my argument? It only supports it.

No it does not, if Solomon only married the Egyptian princess. Do you think she would not want to pay to he people's gods? Do you think if Solomon let her do so because he loved her and wanted her to be happy, that things would play out different? Why it could be even worse, as he would be with his wife 100% when she makes him follow evil foreign gods.

>>18134420
is it part of the New Testament

>>18134154
>The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.”
>He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
Deuteronomy 17:16-17
Polygamy in general is never prohibited though.

>>18134438
...And Joseph Smith did the exact same thing, despite having written The Book of Mormon before doing it. Some holy prophet.
>>18134470
>From being a man. Are you that dumb that you think people in monogamous nations who were never married neve did something similar to David where they slept with another man's wife, killed the man. Then they could have their love as their ONE wife. Are you saying God would be ok with David's actions if David had 0 wives when he was sleeping with Bathsehba?
Did I say it was exclusive to David? I'm saying that David abused his kingly status and it led him down the path of adultery and then murder. Sin begets sin, that's how it works. I noticed you just blatantly omitted the results of the polygamy I laid out, which I guess is natural, because you have no refutation to it, I suppose.
>No it does not, if Solomon only married the Egyptian princess. Do you think she would not want to pay to he people's gods? Do you think if Solomon let her do so because he loved her and wanted her to be happy, that things would play out different? Why it could be even worse, as he would be with his wife 100% when she makes him follow evil foreign gods.
Because not only did Solomon take many foreign wives, he took in many foreign gods. That's the point. Your argument of "one foreign marriage, one foreign god" is moot, because that's not what happened.
>He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molek the god of the Ammonites, and did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.
One god would be bad enough, but precisely BECAUSE of his polygamy, he brought in a shitload of them. You can't handwave the polygamy angle away with your hypothetical.

>>18134540
>the exact same thing
Actually it was completely different - he had zero concubines and didn't treat his wives as concubines

>>18134535
No, but it's obviously heavily implied, and I've already showcased the consequences. Why do you think the NT, specifically Paul, only frames it in with one man and woman?

>>18134549
Why are you going to concubines, when you yourself just quoted a verse that included wives? Why would wives be included if it was just concubines?

>>18134552
"faithful to one wife" doesn't exclude faithful to multiple, it does however explicitly exclude Catholic celibacy.

>>18134552
The mosaic law sees 0 problems with polygamy for the average man, I agree the NT strongly implies polygamy is immoral though.

>>18134554
They were wrong to their overmany wives unlike Joseph Smith

>>18134557
It can be if the wives aren't attended to correctly

>>18134555
Matthew 19:4–6:
>Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
Does that one flesh then go on to another woman, making the wife a lesbian? Think about it

>>18134557
I think there were practical reasons, mostly through "multiplying the Earth" in the early days. It would make sense. By the time of the NT, it's no longer required, there's enough people now.
>>18134558
See above and the Matthew Verse: >>18134562

>>18134501
It is definitely a New Covenant book.

>>18134562
>Does that one flesh then go on to another woman, making the wife a lesbian? Think about it
gross

>>18134552
Not mormon and no. Paul's one man, one woman rule is at most a rule for priests and Bishops. Absolutely no rule against polygamy for lay people in the NT.

>>18134562
You wash your penis before and after

>>18134575
See:
>>18134562
You don't even need to go to Paul for it.
>>18134583
Thank you for the input, Mr. Peterson

>>18134583
gross

>>18134570
How is that if its 1800years later?

>>18134612
It's based on a true story.

>>18134934
A true story that has been entirely disproven by archaeology and the decipherment of the Egyptian and Maya scripts?

>>18135041
Technically, not archaeologically disproven, because they just moved it around to some obscure small unknown portion of Mesoamerica, and that's why nobody has found shit. Not defending it, just saying. The scripts should be the smoking gun, but if it's one things Mormons are good at, it's headcanoning.

>>18134934
based

Okay, say we allow polygamy. Do we also permit bigamy? The marrying of women who are already married to other men? Child brides? Because Joseph Smith did both of these things.

Warren Jeffs is wayyyyyy closer to emulating Joseph Smith than whoever the "President and Profit" I mean... "Prophet" of the mainline LDS church is, and they put Warren in prison. You literally cannot live true to actual original Mormonism these days without being sent to prison.

>>18134540
>He abused his authority.
Not by maying more than one woman. That was allowed. Hell God mandated David to do polygamy and modem day Christians in David's position would sin by not taking wives. He was told to take Saul's wives the former king.

>Because not only did Solomon take many foreign wives, he took in many foreign gods. That's the point. Your argument of "one foreign marriage, one foreign god" is moot, because that's not what happened.

This is dumb, with that logic I can say the Bible does not flat out prohibit polygamy. Either we can use our brain to compare scenarios on what is and is not permitted, in which case you can argue scripture either allows or bans polygamy. Or we can't use our brains and just read what is said, then polygamy is not banned.

>>18135099
Yes Joe Smith did bigamy by taking other men's wives. But he did not take child bides. At the time the women were adults.

Smith has sons only by one woman idk where all this came from

>>18133632 (OP)
all three of his supposed witnesses were excommunicated lol

his shitty cult was a joke from day 1

>>18135167
>Not by maying more than one woman. That was allowed. Hell God mandated David to do polygamy and modem day Christians in David's position would sin by not taking wives. He was told to take Saul's wives the former king.
God never gave David a pat on the ass and a "well done, champ" for having multiple wives, it's obvious that he always intended for one man and one woman. This is like saying that God gave Jephthah a thumbs up, because he didn't explicitly condemn Jephthah fulfilling his hasty vow of having his daughter sacrificed. Silence from God speaks more of the condemnation more than anything, because it's obvious with Jephthah there's a lesson of making hasty vows, and with David there's the lesson of turning your heart away from God in earthly pursuits, and that includes the damn polygamy. The transfer of Saul's house was human ruling, not God, and even then David didn't take Saul's wives. Did God also command slavery too, or was he just conforming to human practices?
>This is dumb, with that logic I can say the Bible does not flat out prohibit polygamy. Either we can use our brain to compare scenarios on what is and is not permitted, in which case you can argue scripture either allows or bans polygamy. Or we can't use our brains and just read what is said, then polygamy is not banned.
You keep going with these snippy little jabs of calling me stupid, but I've been tearing your arguments a new asshole left and right. Was Jephthah's hasty vow actually what he wanted? It was, right? I mean, God didn't flat out say he didn't want it, did he? Gee, we just can't know his intent through critical reading of the text, we need to have it spoonfed to us.

>>18135231
wash your penis stinky butthole man

>>18135231
>Did God command slavery too?

What a dumb thing. Yes he did, he flat out told the Israelites to engage in slavery. God also instituted the monarchy, and he GAVE that stuff to David. I swear modern Christians ae the dumbest when they make up modern bullshit, instead of following the faith the way it was.

>>18135328
No, he didn't command to enslave people, he implemented regulations that were downright liberal compared to what other societies were doing. This is conforming to human practice, not shattering the wheel completely, so everyone goes into shock. Incrementally, history plays out until the coming of Christ. You won't find a single verse in the OT that explicitly and clearly has God directing to enslave anyone.

Word of advice: Stop flinging around insults of calling people dumb, especially when you can't even give solid refutations to the person you're debating. It makes you a hypocrite, and ironically, also ends up making you look dumb. Debate in good faith and respect, and not like a chimp.

>>18135358
End of slavery was foreshadowed by Joseph Smith

>>18135358
Ok you want a solid refutation. When God told Moses to have the Jews kill of the Midianites unless they were young females, who they could "keep for themselves."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2031%3A1-18&version=NASB

>>18135394
That wasn't slavery, that was integration, and again, that was a practice done outside of Moses's tribe as well, mainly for replenishing the tribe's numbers.

>>18135394
based

>>18133717
How did Broseph Smith mem the Joelden Plates into existence?

>>18133635
He died for our sins, enjoy hell.

>>18135358
Leviticus 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

>>18135417
No it was not. If an African warlord told you he had his soldiers kill all the men, boys, and women who were not virgins. But those little ones the men could keep for themselves. Would you think they wee just "integrated into the tribe."
Stop making excuses it's a sin.

>>18133902
>Joseph Smith has a cock of infinite girth.
Based.

>>18135099
There is nothing moraly wrong with a 28 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl. ESPECIALLY in a preindustrial agricultural and patriarchical society like frontier America.

>>18136016
That's not commanding to enslave anyone, just conforming to human practices, like I've been saying.
>>18137056
>Let me ignore history of what the tribes of the time actually did
>Uh, here's a hypothetical different from what those tribes did
No

>>18137100
Ok pedo

>>18135231
>God never gave David a pat on the ass and a "well done, champ" for having multiple wives
In 2 Samuel 12:8, the Lord speaking through Nathan reminds David that He Himself had given him “thy master’s wives into thy bosom.”

>>18137102
How is it different?
You ae the one who is lying and saying that the ancient mid east tribes, act different than the modem ones.

Lying to make your faith look progressive is a sin, tick tock the fire just got hotter.

>>18133632 (OP)
He was into psychedelics, pseudohistory and folk magic, he'd be posting on /x/ if he were alive today.

>>18135099
Mormon's believe in progressive revelation, much like Bahais. There's actually more links between the two than people think.

>>18137140
Yeah to me that's retarded. Why would the Mormon god restore the TRUE RELIGION in 18-dickety-3 only to need to modify it over time?

>Oops, turns out blacks ARE people after all and can have the full priesthood. Oops, turns out (earthly) polygamy ISN'T required to get into the Celestial Kingdom. Oops, caffeinated drinks are actually fine but coffee and tea are still bad for no apparent reason.

God is unchanging, but Mormons seem to think He changes based on politics and other earthly factors. Quite absurd.

>>18137113
Which was the natural result of the household and all titles with it for the next king. It's the passing of monarchy and David still didn't marry any of Saul's wives, otherwise the Lord would have said "Why didn't you marry these women?". God wasn't gifting them up for marriage, he was saying the kingdom and all included in it was given to him.
>>18137124
>How is it different?
Because this is established history of those tribes in the lands, and going off into a tangent of "Well, what about African warlords or something?" is irrelevant. You don't want to engage with the original argument, which was commanded slavery, and want to go off into hypothetical tangents, because you have nothing.

So, in summary, this long line of back and forth has only showcased that polygamy was never God's intention, and that one man, one woman was always the intent. The discussion spiraled into slavery, because the joker who couldn't refute any of the polygamy arguments was grasping for anything to save face and wanted to change topics.

>>18137202
No polygamy is allowed under god's law.

>>18137192
>David still didn't marry any of Saul's wives

You are a filthy liar. God gave David Saul's wives INTO HIS BOSUM. He took those women as wives. They were his wives. Those who ague monogamy from the Bible ae the most pagan sinful deceivers of all.

>Because this is established history of those tribes in the lands

You are the one going on tangents. The established history of those mid east tribes is to take young women as pleasure slaves. Which the ancient jews did, and God told them to do so by way of Moses.

>>18137279
No, polygamy is allowed under god's law.

>>18137202
Source?

>>18137291
Yeah, and it's also said that Moses carried Israel in his bosom. Did Moses have sex and marry everyone in Israel, too?
>You are the one going on tangents. The established history of those mid east tribes is to take young women as pleasure slaves. Which the ancient jews did, and God told them to do so by way of Moses.
Deuteronomy 21:10–14
There were no sex slaves, which means they were integrated into the tribe, which means your entire slavery argument is null and void. Time to put an end to it.
>>18137437
>Source?
This thread

>>18137495
but you are an idiot

>>18137496
Okay

>>18137202
>this long line of back and forth has only showcased that polygamy was never God's intention
lol

>>18134557
>strongly implies
Oh ok. I see your "evidance now.

>>18137495
You are such a liar. No they wee not "integrated" in the tribe. Again they were made slaves, and men could sleep with slaves without marrying them it was not a sin.
Again they killed the innocent boys. They kept the girls for a whole nother reason.

>>18137536
>innocent
Guilty of .. generational curses!

>>18137572
And the young women who did not sleep with men, are not for some reason.

You people ae the lowest of scum. Absolute idiots. Also by the way this was not about the Caanites, but the Midianites, they did not have curses put on them. They just had a conflict with Jews and lost. So the Jews killed that tribe took the stuff, and had young female pleasure slaves.

Face it you are just as bad as the Muslims, no you are worse because they are honest while you lie about your faith.

>>18137582
Verily thou art a Korihor.

>>18134144
>who was selling a pretty good deal
Not related to Joseph Smith but someone similar but I think the quran makes a lot more sense if someone realizes it was created by a merchant. The guy tried tricks to sell camels to many people. He used similar tricks to sell his book, his religion and his God.
>heaven and hell repeated several times in the quran
Like it's kind of marketing slogan.
>Buy my product and you will be happy, don't buy it and you will suffer

>>18137536
>“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

>>18137601
Why you calling me something from the book of Mormon?

>>18133632 (OP)
I don't remember him doing this in national treasure

>>18133632 (OP)
>creates religions for white people
>ends up attracting more shitskins from 3rd world countries instead of whites.
lol, what a great religion.

>>18133632 (OP)
Did he even know Orthodox even existed? Surely he knew about Catholics thirdhand, but the US had really no knowledge of the Orthodox all the way back then unless you were a member of the intelligentsia, and fake-translating an Egyptian papyrus doesn't count

>>18137854
real translations

Neither slavery nor polygamy are condemned by the Bible because neither are intrinsically sinful or morally wrong Although abuses can occur wirhin such institutions, they are the exception - much like how an abusive spouse does not make the institution of marriage malum per se.
Arguing against slavery is just internalized Anglo-American modern moralizing, not biblical.

>>18135099
>Child brides?

>Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
>>18137846
Mormonism is still very white demographically though (In countries traditionally inhabited by whites). And it was never a 'whites only' realigion. The book of Mormon was translated to Hawaiian before it was to Swedish.

>>18137949
Early Mormons also had a thing where they would adopt Indian children and such. Some reported their skin got lighter, which they ascribed as the curse of Laman being lifted from them (Reason for mormon conversion rates in brazil revealed...).

>>18137961
The real curse of Laman is on black people

>>18138447
No they think that is the Mark of Cain. Mormon God apparently always curses people with dark skin. Why is he so racist?

Before you retarded 4chan racists start joining Mormonism, they abandoned this doctrine in the 1970/ because apparently MLK convinced Mormon god that darkies are ok. So much for an unchanging God.

>>18137871
We can translate hieroglyphics now, it isn't about Abraham. Sorry your religion is a fraud.

>>18138463
Well continuous revelation is literally that God says different things at different times, yes.
Christians don't believe that an unchanging God has to keep to one line forever. Even normal Chrstians. The Fulfilled covenant and all that.

>>18133717
That's all religions

>>18138484
God doesn't change. Sorry m8, you're worshipping a fictional space alien.

>>18138476
It actually was about Abraham.

>>18138503
I feel bad for you, no amount of dissuasion will stop you from believing in the cult's lies. Like Pharaoh, God has chosen to harden your heart and make you dig in your heels in unbelief, or rather malbelief. I will pray for you, best of luck.

>>18138484
And as for modifying stances to fit cultural changes or take a position in the issues of the day, normal Christians also do that. Just without the revelation part. There are several different ways they do this, to be fair. Some churches just deliver the new position of the ruling body after careful deliberationTM, others just re-read the bible and conclude it endorsed their new standards all along.

>>18138494
Yep, that's why Judaism is true and God has no son.

>>18138513
And it is wrong when they compromise doctrine to suit political whims, just like it will be wrong (in the context of Mormonism) when the LDS Church embraces the LGBTPQIA+.

>durr some Christians override the Bible to suit political progressivism therefore it's ok when other groups do it
No, it isn't.

>>18138534
Some? It is all of them (though most do so passively). It is a part of life.

>>18138550
Fuck that. Conform to the Word not the World.

>btfos Mormons' bank accounts to build Masonic temples to do retarded rituals and line the pockets of "the twelve" and "the seventy"
Based grifters