Jaye wrote:
[b]

Here is an example. After the Word of Wisdom was revealed, Joseph Smith continued to imbibe in wine and other strong drink, and to chew tobacco and smoke cigars. His wife served coffee and tea when she served as hostess.


And one of the things you continually say but don't understand is that the WoW was not orginally a command, but a principle. Says so right in the first couple verses.

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
b]Wren wrote:[/b]
The scriptures clearly document many instances when prophets sin and are justly and properly punished by God for their ways.

Again, is not discerning a fraud sin?

Perhaps so.


So by that silly logic, if you make a mistake as it relates to anything in your life, you are sinning.

Mistakes are not sin. There's a good talk that was given on this in conference. Course you wouldn't know this, you don't listen nor watch it.

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b
BTW...we disregard a great many things which Moses taught as being God's commandments to His people.

Such as?

Do I really have to spell it out for you?

Alrighty then.

1. We no longer practice blood atonement through spilling the blood of animals and birds to atone for our sins, and burn their carcasses on altars of stone, nor do we sprinkle their blood on our priests.

2. We enjoy artwork in the form of statues and sculptures, and paintings without fear of being killed for practicing idolatry.

3. We do not have laws concerning the methods in which we may sell our sons or daughters into slavery or bondery.

4. If a child disobeys or disrespects his parents, we are not permitted to kill that child.

5. If a child strikes one of his parents in anger, we are not permitted to kill that child.

6. We no longer take an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, returning evil for evil, blow for blow, death for death.

7. We do not stone adulterers to death.

8. We do not forbid imperfect specimens of men, or women to enter into the Temple.

We do not forbid those with blemishes to offer the bread of the Lord, nor those who are lame, blind, have flat noses, broken feet or hands, crooked backs, twisted spines, dwarves, blemmished eyes, or scurvied or scabbed to approach the Lord in His Sanctuary.

Moses taught that God forbade these things because imperfections would profane His sacraments.

9. We do not forbid men who were injured in their 'stones' to enter into the Temple.

10. As far as our meat intake...pretty much anything goes if you want to eat it. Me? I love pork chops and sausages, and baby-back ribs.

11. We are not forbidden to eat shellfish.

12. We do not drive out those who are afflicted with contagious diseases. We treat their diseases.
And when that individual is healed of that disease, we do not take two birds, kill one, drain it's blood, and dip the living bird in that blood and sprinkle it on the newly healed individual...and participate in days of bathing rituals, and slaughter of lambs to further cleanse him.

13. We do not consider women who are menstruating to be unclean, and must be put apart for seven days, or anything that she touches, wears, sits upon, or lies upon is also unclean... and we do not consider that any man who touches a menstruating woman is also unclean, and therefore must cleanse himself thouroughly.

14. We do not require women who have completed menses, and waited the required 7 days before taking two turtles or two pigeons to the priest, one to be killed as a sin offering, and one as a burned offering for atonement.

15. We do not need to be told to cleanse ourselves after copulation...and we do not consider men and women who have copulated to be unclean until the evening...even AFTER they have showered.

16. We do not consider women who have given birth to be unclean. We do not consider a woman who has given birth to a boy to be unclean for 7 days, but if she gave birth to a girl, to be unclean for 2 weeks.

17. We do not forbid women who have given birth from touching any sacred thing, nor do we forbid them from entering into the sanctuary of the Lord.

And again...we do not require a new mother to sacrifice a lamb, a young pigeon, or a turtledove as a 'sin offering' in order to be cleansed.

18. We are not forbidden to eat anything with the blood, such as blood pudding, or blood sausage.

19. We are not forbidden to shave our heads bald if we wish, or round the corners of our heads, (cut our hair) of trim our beards.

20. We do not put children to death for cursing their mothers and fathers.

21. We do not forbid men to marry a woman who was put aside by her husband.

Shall I continue? Or will this suffice?


Oh brother, the Law of Moses has been done away with because of Christ's coming.

Not the same as doing away with Prophets teachings because they made an error.

You are a nutty whackjob jaye, who's logic is just that, whacky.

Oh brother yourself Dubbs. You asked a question. You received my answer.

It doesn't matter WHY we've done away with those particular restrictions and laws...the fact remains that we DID away with them, and no longer regard them.

And we now disregard those teachings.

Or did you think I was saying that we should disregard ALL of the words and teachings of Moses?


Oh geez, I always either have to explain the topic, or get you back on topic after one of your tangents that are off topic.

The topic was should we disregard what a Prophet says because they make a mistake, and you said yes and give the example of Moses and the Mosiac law?

Christ did away with the law of Moses because Christ came to fulfil that law, it was prophesied this would happen, not because Moses sinned as he came to the promised land.

That is about a far of a leap of logic as I've ever seen, but that's Jaye, illogical.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
[b], but I am glad you made the admission they make errors and mistakes.

I've been saying their fallible from day one, one of the first posts I made was the below, course how would you know this, you don't read posts, but just concentrate on smary comments, and making comments with no proof.

Your latest two was your claim that Jeff Lindsay uses misinformation you couldn't prove, and that the church changed the orginal D&C as far as Moroni being the person Joseph spoke with. Typical angry inch.

Well here Dubbs I found it in the 1851 ed. of Pearl of Great Price...!!!

Lovie wrote:
Here dubbs my friend I’ll help ya out a little:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_reaction_to_Hofmann_forgeries


18 October 1995

After Hofmann's lies and murders were revealed, President Hinckley said:
I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however. We bought those documents only after the assurance that they were genuine. And when we released documents to the press, we stated that we had no way of knowing for sure if they were authentic. I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens.[5]

Conclusion
Some think it strange that a prophet could have been deceived. President Hinckley's public statements make it clear that he was not entirely convinced of the document's provenance, but provisionally accepted the judgment of the experts. (For a discussion of the decision to promptly make the document public when owned by the Church by an author who declared the document a forgery early on, see Rhett S. James, "Writing History Must Not Be an Act of Magic (Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 395–414. off-site PDF link.)
It is also quite possible that President Hinckley knew by revelation that the documents were fraudulent at the time of the purchase. If the church refused to purchase them, they could have wound up belonging to enemies of the church who would have done all they could to prevent their fraudulent nature from being discovered and made public. In hindsight, the purchase of these documents helped lead to their exposure as fakes and the arrest of Mark Hofmann.
However, one should not be surprised if a prophet is deceived. The LDS do not believe their prophets to be infallible. See: General authority statements as scripture
The Lord made it clear to Joseph Smith that a prophet is not granted to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church:
But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter. (D&C 10:37)
The LDS doctrine of free agency requires that those who plot evil be allowed a certain latitude, though (as President Hinckley prophetically noted) permanent harm to the Lord's work will not be permitted....

There is more if you want to read it go to this link
http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_reaction_to_Hofmann_forgeries


President Hinckley responded after the documents were found in the Ensign, and never said he thought they were 100 legit. I liked his response.


"No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies. It is, however, an interesting document of the times" (S.L. Dew, The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 428). President Hinckley affirmed that the letter did not undermine the Church or Church history. He remained confident and firm in his stance, in spite of the heavy assault of the media and critics of the Church. He said the Church "will weather every storm that beats against it. It will outlast every critic who rises to mock it. It carries the name of Him whose it is, even the Lord Jesus Christ" (Church News, June 30, 1985, as cited by Dew, p. 428). Those were prophetic words.



I think the Lord did see, in His own way, that those damaging documents were revealed as frauds, though the faith of many was tried in the process. The way the truth was revealed was much more convincing and effective than if a Church leader had declared that the damaging and "authenticated" documents were fraudulent. Such claims would have been ridiculed and may have even hindered the objective investigation into the possibility of forgery by Hofmann

More on the Hoffman and the Tanners dishonesty. ..

In their discussion of the Hofmann affair, the Tanners repeat what they have long asserted - that the LDS Church is "suppressing" documents it does not want made public by placing them in the First Presidency's vault (p. 24). But placing an historical document in a safe place hardly implies suppression. Burning the document would be a safer way of getting rid of negative evidence. Placing it in a vault only preserves it for future use. We have the example of the Joseph Smith papyri, which lay for decades in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, only to be brought to the Church's attention by a professor doing research there. Yet no one has accused the Metropolitan of "suppressing" these documents! They were their guardian, just as the Church is the guardian of many documents. Recent history has shown us how people like the Tanners misuse such documents -- sometimes literally publishing what does not belong to them -- to promote their own ends. Consequently, one is not surprised when the Tanners, unable to obtain documents they want, accuse the Church of suppression. . . .
Strangely, the minutes the Tanners quote from a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (p. 31), rather than suggesting a cover-up, indicate that the Church was going to publicly announce the acquisition; clearly, this does not support Tanner's story [of a Church cover up].

Scum bags


Fact is Gordon B. Hinckley never came out and endorsed those documents as authentic. That is something simply assumed due to the fact that he purchased them. That assumption is not justified.
Every statement he made about them was a qualified statement that falls short of endorsing them as correct. He said things like "experts say they are authentic." He didn't say that he agrees with their evaluation and, in fact, regarding the JSIII document, he did say that being a fraud was not ruled out, but that there is no evidence of that so far (this is all going by memory).

By purchasing those documents, GBH kept control of them within the Church. If they became the property of enemies of the Church, then they would NEVER have been tested well enough to show them as fakes and the church would have a false charge hanging over its head with no way to bring the truth to light to the world. . . .

The proof is in the pudding: the actions of GBH and the Church lead to the exposure of a fraud and murderer and kept the Church from falling into the trap laid for it.