Mormon Trinity

[Cerealman]

As Thread Starter, I must insist we get back on topic. There have been NO recent mentions of bacon.

If you had fairies you could wish for more bacon and make me king of tweb...

[seven7up]

7UP: So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate.

This is what you don't get -- Joseph claims to have gotten this from the "golden plates". WHY would "the most perfect book on earth" need "clarified" on such a crucial point?

Let's look at the claim of the "translation" process... (bolding mine)

The original translation was correct. "Son of God" was not likely to be on the plates at all. That was added by Joseph for the benefit of the modern reader, to know which member of the Godhead was being referred to.

-7up

[seven7up]

Hey, 7up is back! I so don't have time to read and post right now, but just wanted to say hi.

--India

Hello.

[seven7up]

Interesting you should try to make that comparison, 7up.

When God wanted us to know about Salvation through Christ, He sent us a sinless Savior prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and one in whom no guile was found, and sinless.

When Smith wanted us to believe that God sent HIMSELF to "restore" what Christ had done, God supposedly used a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist who couldn't get his story straight right from the beginning.

The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

However, I will say that people accused Jesus of being a lunatic, a fraud, or a myth. They still do. So, if a perfect and sinless man is accused of such things, then a sinful human being is even more likely to come under criticism.

I'm saying [the Book of Mormon] DID teach the Trinity, then Modalism, ....

I answered that. question.



So, then what do you do? You go into Ad hominem which does not advance the conversation.

a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist ...I believe Smith was a pathological liar and a fraud.

Then you jump all over the place from topic to topic instead of the original topic.

-- - - - - - - - - --

I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife,

7UP: Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?

Interesting you should bring up the wife, 7up. That's the point at which I first began confidently declaring Smith a fraud -

You already start with the assumption that God did not command it, then you made conclusions based on that. My mind was open when I began investigating Mormonism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, are we going to discuss the translation process? Polygamy? Whether or not prophets are flawed? Why don't you just throw in the Book of Abraham while you are at it?

This conversation is going to go nowhere if this is how you handle a discussion.

What was the original topic again?

-7up

[seven7up]

Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

No it didn't. Like the Bible, I already showed how the Book of Mormon did not teach Modalism or the Trinity. The Book of Mormon shows a separation between Father and Son and an embodiment of the Father and an embodiment of the Son (i.e. the Father and Son each have shape, position, and form.) See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18 or

3 Nephi 9:15 “Behold, I am Jesus Christ
the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth,
and all things that in them are. I was with the Father
from the beginning. now let's look at the Lectures on Faith.

Having place WITH another Being, the Father, precludes the notion that Jesus is that same Being.

Source: Same Article - bolding mine

The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad . . . a perfect under¬standing of the doctrine believed by this society." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

© Copyright Original Source

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.

The lectures on Faith does not teach Trinitarianism or Modalism.

Source: Lectures on Faith - bold added

the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;

© Copyright Original Source

Sidney Rigdon wrote most of the Lectures on Faith. We see here that he understood God the Father as being the same way that Jesus was described in the Book of Mormon, as an embodied spirit with hands, eyes, head, etc. Why didn't Joseph correct the "personage of spirit" phrasing? Because Joseph Smith didn't know that yet. Why would he? It is not like he had an opportunity to touch God the Father's physical body. That detail had to be revealed specifically to Joseph.

Earlier on this thread, I asked:
7UP: Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?

You responded:

And AGAIN I answer, no

Well, why then do you expect the early Mormons to know that the Father's embodiment was "tangible"?

-7up

[seven7up]

How could Smith get anything wrong, 7up? He supposedly talked and saw God directly. He had the golden plates too. Exactly where would the confusion, or inconsistencies come from?

Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

Again, I give you a comparison to the apostles in the gospel accounts of the New Testament. These guys were with Jesus Christ every day for at least a couple years. They STILL had all kinds of misunderstandings. Even after receiving teachings about certain specific things from Jesus, they still didn't grasp the concepts.

Double standard much Sparko?

Why would he tell Smith that the Trinity was true, then tell him it wasn't?

The early church did not teach that "the Trinity was true". Allow me to give you some quotes that further solidify what I have explained here:

These were produced by Joseph Smith in 1830:

Joseph rendered the meaning of Genesis 1:26 as:

"And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them." (Moses 2:26-27.)

What does it mean when God says he created man "in mine own image"? Joseph Smith rendered the meaning of Genesis 5:1-2 as follows:

"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them" (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

So, we have the teaching of a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity.

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, mentioned that the LDS concept of God was different than that of other denominations (also in 1830):

"the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle."

Wake up dude! Read your own religion's literature with a bit of skepticism and ask some hard questions.

Say the folks who think they know about the my religion because they read some anti-mormon web sites.

Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.

-7up

[seven7up]

Contrasting the LDS view to the Trinity

It's the way the Church has handled people who invent novel ideas that contradict what the Apostles taught their students all along,

Yet you cannot demonstrate that the "Trinity" is what the Apostles taught their students all along, or even that the Apostles taught it at all.

That's just a plain crappy bastardization of the Trinity doctrine. No one says the Father and Son are equal in authority. What we claim is they are co-equal in their essence. Functional subordination vs. ontological equality.

The early creeds (like the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) did not define things that specifically. Why don't you provide me with your modern detailed definition of the Trinity, your "creed" so to speak. Then we can discuss it.

However, I have a feeling that we will be given into the Trinity word games and become lost. What does it mean to be "co-equal"? The definition is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". Not only does it imply equality between two things or two beings, but the same "rank" would mean the same authority. So you have to say, as you do here, that they are not equal in authority, but instead in "essence" or "glory" or "power". Well, you then have to explain why they would be equal in glory and power, if one has authority over the other. Why does the essence have authority here, but that same essence does not have authority there. Or if they are the same essence or the same being, how can it have authority and rank over itself? You then have to make up more phrases like "Functional subordination vs. ontological equality" in order to twist it into a level where people finally have to just say, "Eh, its a mystery."



7UP: We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*

Rubbish. He is the exact representation of the Father's nature (or those things that make God God), ...

Is God the Father "omnipresent" by nature? Does God the Father bow Himself to a higher authority by nature? Does the Father beget by nature?

You say the "exact" representation, and Mormons would agree with that. However, your theology has to start qualifying that statement by shaving off certain characteristics.

7UP: Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable.

You argued that they were, but you failed miserably, when your argument boiled down to simply whining that "God COULD HAVE done better" in ex nihilo. And I showed you how that whine can be applicable to every theory of God, including yours.

The only way I failed was to get you to understand the Theodicy. It was not my fault that you didn't get it. The other people I spoke with understood it, but your mind is so entrenched in the Ex Nihilo mindset, that you cannot comprehend the implications that come with thinking any other way.

Case in point:

7UP: I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea
However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.
The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.

Simply untrue. Deity can not be created nor obtained as an inherent nature. ... Any form of polytheism falls apart when a created being is classified as deity in and of itself.

In LDS theology, the characteristics of Deity ARE inherent eternally with Jesus Christ. The thing is, when you say 'create', you mean something different, because in your mind you are thinking of creation "from nothing."

But the problem exists when we understand that there is only one deity that exists as fire in and of itself. Lighting another fire implies that the first was also lit by something else. The fire had to start somewhere, and those things who were "lit" are mere immitations of that which is fire in and of itself, and that never needed something else to light it. The Son was never "lit", which implies that there was a time when He was "unlit". He has always been on fire as the Father has, as the Spirit has, yet there is only one "eternal flame" which is God.

The thing is, that the "second" fire is not to be considered entirely separate from the first. It was described by Justin Martyr more like a fire that is "spreading" and becoming more encompassing, and drawing in more individuals. I suppose the correct way to word it is that fire is singular and the flames spread and become more as more fuel is pulled in, thus the glory of God continues to increase into eternity.

Justin Martyr placed the genesis of the "Logos" as a voluntary act of the Father before the beginning of creation. This is fine from an LDS perspective as long as you understand that this is not meant to imply creation from nothing. The "flames" spread to a unique and uncreated intelligence which had perfect characteristics from eternity. Jesus Christ became the Firstbegotten in spirit and was "naturally" Deity (which gave Him the birthright to become the Firstbegotten in physical immortality as well). This concept fits Scripture.

How do Trinitarians get around the teaching of Jesus being created/begotten? That would be problematic because, from the Ex Nihilo perspective, that would imply that Jesus is not an eternal being. So, those making the creeds invented the phrase "eternally begotten", as if the Son must be continuously sustained and issued forth from the Father.

I find that phrase problematic because, "in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily". (Col 2:9)

How can the "fullness of Deity" be found withing Jesus Christ himself, if he has to be "eternally begotten"?

To the contrary, according to my view, in the Godhead, there is a "oneness" that exists among 3 beings, each of whom are fully "Deity", because, for example, the fire spread to another eternal being, who now has this fullness of Deity as a result. However, keep in mind that they are not "separate" in the complete sense, because they also hold a deep interpersonal relationship.

Now, IF they were not each considered fully Deity individually, it could not be said of Jesus that he has "the fulness of Deity" as the scriptures claim, because according to your view, the fulness of Deity must include all 3 as one being. In other words, Trinitarians (and Modalists) contradict the scriptures because they force themselves into a position whereby the fullness of Deity must be referring to all three together as an immutable, incomprehensible and omnipresent essence - Logically this means that the fulness of Deity cannot exist within Jesus bodily.

And finally, the LDS faith simply defines "oneness" differently than you do, as we use "oneness" in the same way as it is used in the Bible. We do not take the idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being "one" to the literal extreme that Trinitarians and Modalists do. We understand that being "one" refers to that harmony and "perichoresis" of the those within that deep interpersonal relationship whereby their spirits hold a constant communication and singular will.

-7up

[Cow Poke]

Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

No, but it CERTAINLY wouldn't be....

"Teach A"
Ooooops, Did I say "Teach A"?

I meant "Teach B"



Smith made it up as he went along.

[Cow Poke]

The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

However, I will say that people accused Jesus of being a lunatic, a fraud, or a myth. They still do. So, if a perfect and sinless man is accused of such things, then a sinful human being is even more likely to come under criticism.
-7up

Yes, I've heard all that stupidity before --- Jesus didn't constantly give them REASON and CAUSE to make accusations of substance. Smith did.


MAJOR big difference, and it's a slap in the face to Christ that you would attempt to drag Him down in such a disgusting manner.

Smith was a fraud. Jesus was sinless.

[Sparko]

Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

That's the beauty of being God's Prophet and Mouthpiece. Smith didn't have to understand anything. He was God's scribe. His secretary. He just had to write down what God told him to write down. And translate the plates that God gave him. You seem to think that it was Smith's job to understand and make up doctrine. While WE believe that he made up doctrines and commands because he was a phony conman, the LDS church doesn't. God appeared to him, spoke to him face to face, told him what to say and do, what to write, and translated the plates for him, PERFECTLY.

So there would be no errors. God would not change his mind. Smith would get it all correctly. But he didn't.

Again, I give you a comparison to the apostles in the gospel accounts of the New Testament. These guys were with Jesus Christ every day for at least a couple years. They STILL had all kinds of misunderstandings. Even after receiving teachings about certain specific things from Jesus, they still didn't grasp the concepts.

The Apostles had misunderstandings while they were learning from Jesus. He corrected them on the way. Once they got the Holy Spirit afterwards, they were inspired by God to write the gospels, which do not contradict themselves. And God doesn't tell them one thing one day and the opposite the next. And they didn't even talk to the Father face to face!

Double standard much Sparko?

No, 7up. It seems you like to use the same old excuses that all mormons do. When preaching why the LDS church is the restored church, you all like to brag how perfect the BoM is, that Smith knew and talked to God personally, and all of the Christian churches were wrong. When it is pointed out to you that Smith, nor the BoM is perfect, that contradictions abound, all of a sudden its "so? your guys did the same thing!" -- LOL.

The early church did not teach that "the Trinity was true".

I quoted to you from the three witness statement on the BoM already. It ends with a statement of the Trinity. ONE God, three persons. Later Smith changed it to multiple Gods.

Say the folks who think they know about the my religion because they read some anti-mormon web sites.

No. I have read the Book of Mormon myself. Studied the D&C, and learned on my own. The LDS church is a hot mess. I assume you were born into it and that is why it seems so normal to you and you don't question anything. Am I right?

Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.

This I seriously doubt. Or perhaps you read the info with a squinted eye, not wanting to actually consider any evidence against your religion. Most mormons have a knack for ignoring the problems and hand-waving them away. Suspension of disbelief.

[Sparko]

The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

That's not what Smith taught.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409

[Cerealman]

That's not what Smith taught.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409

Wow,guy had a pretty big ego.

[Cow Poke]

Wow,guy had a pretty big ego.

Yes, he was a classic narcissist.

[seven7up]

Hebrews 1

7UP: God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".

Because there is only one God.

LDS scripture says that there is one God. For example, when Christ says in Doctrine and Covenants: "I am the true light ... I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (D&C 93:2-3)

The question is: In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

If your claim that the Father is the literal father of all angels, then vs. 5 is nonsense because to ALL of the angels He is a Father and they are His sons. So, instead of Jesus' unique place as the ONLY begotten, we would have these answers:

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

Answer: ALL of them

And again,
I will be a Father to Him
And He shall be a Son to Me”?

Answer: ALL of them

All of them are "sons of God" in the spiritual sense. However, as the First born spirit and the chosen/anointed one, Jesus was to be the ONLY Begotten son according to the flesh. The wording is consistent with LDS doctrine. Jesus was the Firstbegotten in spirit and, as the anointed Savior and Only begotten in the flesh, he was given power to become the Firstbegotten in the resurrection.

“Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom—the Only Begotten of the Father according to the flesh, and holds the keys over all this world” (Smith, Teachings, 323 - emphasis added).

Heb 1
9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

Again, a kingly praise from Psalm 45:

Yes, and it refers to Jesus Christ, who is Deity. It is entirely proper to say that the God of Jesus Christ is God the Father.

"Jesus saith unto her, ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

Also, as a side note, IF God and Jesus were the same Being, and IF God the Father were literally omnipresent, then Jesus would not have to "ascend" to Heaven in order to be in the presence of the Father.

7UP: You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows")

this is a kingly claim that He alone among humanity was worthy. THAT is the "fellows" or "companions" that are being referred to here, just as in Psalm 45.

The writer of Hebrews is EQUATING angels and humans, just like Latter Day Saints do. Humans and angels are the same people, as we are all spiritual sons of God. Jesus was the Only Begotten according to the flesh, but there were other "sons of God" according to the spirit. Hebrews 1 is speaking of the angels in comparison to the "firstbegotten":

Heb 1
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

You are right that Psalms is referring to humanity, but it is clear from the context that Hebrews is referring to the other sons of God (i.e. angels). This is because humanity and the sons of God are the same and Jesus was chosen from among these fellow beings, due to His superiority.

Wrong. We see that He was not an angel (as He was made lower than angels while He sojourned on earth)

He was only 'made lower than the angels' in the sense that His glory was veiled. At the mount of transfiguration, apostles saw the glory of Christ which was the true reality. Jesus still had command over his "fellows" (the angels) even in mortality.

No. Hebrews 1 makes a clear distinction that the Son is NOT, nor has He ever been, an angel.

Here is a scripture referring to Jesus Christ, who was Jehovah in the Old Testament:
"He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" (Genesis 48:15-16 - emphasis added)

We also know that "morning star" and "son of the morning" are angelic titles.

"I (Jesus) am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." (Rev 22:16 - See also 2 Peter 1:19 which again refers to Jesus as "morning star")

Jesus is not an angel, so the angels are subject to Him as God. The word "other" in your reply was superfluous and improper.

As I showed above, the context of Hebrews 1 is speaking of angels, and how Jesus was chosen/anointed from among his "fellows". Christ's foreordination occurred from BEFORE the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:20) , before Adam had even been created and before anybody became human/mortal.

Colossians 1:16 says that He created them, not organized them.

Your complaint against the concept of "organizing" in creation simply stems from your Ex Nihilo mindset. Your understanding of creation does not match the way it is used in the Bible. I addressed that in my New Testament presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFST2-vfIY

-7up

[seven7up]

7UP: The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

That's not what Smith taught.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409

I see that instead of discussing the topic of this thread, you prefer to run through all the anti-Mormon talking points. Including the ones that you likely know very little about. And why would you? The anti-Mormon websites never give the context.

Allow me to inform you, since you refuse to inform yourself. Since this was recorded after Joseph's death, some people have doubts that Joseph even said it, or at least not in the way that it is recorded. However, I think that it is likely that Joseph said it. So, let's assume that the quote is 100% accurate. Why was Joseph "boasting"? All we have to do is look at the context of the discourse.

The part you quoted says, "Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!" He says this because there were people in the crowd who had just attacked him. They persecuted him to try to stop him from building the Church.

With that in mind, let's also see what Joseph said. First he read from one of Paul's letters in the New Testament.

2 Corinthians 11:
"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.... For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. ... As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. ... I say again, let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. ... Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also."

Paul goes on to boast about being a minister, his lineage as a Hebrew, about being whipped, being shipwrecked, persecuted, etc.

"Christians" had pulled Joseph Smith from his home, beaten him and tarred and feathered him. So, shortly after, Joseph read to the anti-Mormons about Paul, who also was persecuted, but then boasted. But the point of Paul's boasting was not to glory in himself. Paul goes on to say later that in all this he glories in Christ, who made it possible.

So, Joseph Smith reads this chapter from Paul to his audience, then goes on to "boast". Like Paul, he is purposefully boasting from a worldy/"foolish" perspective. After he is done using Paul's tactic, later in the discourse, Joseph then goes on and says that he "teaches the things of Christ" and admonishes the members of the Church to be humble.

So, it is proven again how little you know. The anti-Mormon websites will leave you looking like a fool every time.

-7up