Are Some People Afraid to Read Their Own History?
john p
this site threaten some peoples testimonies? Shouldn't it reinforce
it? Doesn't light help a person discern the landscape--should truth
cause so much confusion? Why are Mormons afraid, if they are afraid,
to investigate their own beliefs? People of other religions don't seem
paranoid about reading critical information concerning their faith.
Joker
jp> this site threaten some peoples testimonies? Shouldn't it reinforce
jp> it? Doesn't light help a person discern the landscape--should truth
jp> cause so much confusion? Why are Mormons afraid, if they are
jp> afraid,
jp> to investigate their own beliefs? People of other religions don't
jp> seem
jp> paranoid about reading critical information concerning their faith.
I think the problem with reading history of the church is figuring out if it
is true or not. You generally get the information from one of two sources,
from the church and from those against the church. I say against the church
since I think it is very rare to have a completely unbiased assessment of
the information. For those against the church, you would have members who
have left and those of different faiths who are trying to get all these
Mormons to "see the error of their ways". So, no matter what the source,
it's veracity is called into question. Is the member leaving out
questionable material? Is the non-member misinterpreting or misrepresenting
the information? There in lies the problem. Personally, I read whatever I
can and pray about it.
--
Joker
"...God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me."
Gen. 21:6
john p
>can and pray about it.
Mormons don't have a monopoly on prayer. People pray for confirmation
of their beliefs all the time. Every one can't be right.
I believe the people of other faiths are as sincere as you, but that
doesn't prove reality.
I guess it depends on what you want out of life. I wanted truth over
assurance of an after life. Sure the whole idea of being a god with
lots of wives is appealing, but it just isn't true.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> I guess it depends on what you want out of life. I wanted
> truth over assurance of an after life.
>
Seems to me that hope in an afterlife is the sole purpose of
religion.
>
> Sure the whole idea of being a god with lots of wives is
> appealing, but it just isn't true.
>
Neither is your caracature of Mormonism. In fact, they reported on
some research in _Dialogue_ a few years back. An overwhelming majority
of Mormon men responded that they would not accept plural marriage even
if asked personally by the prophet.
bestRegards, Guy.
john p
>An overwhelming majority
>of Mormon men responded that they would not accept plural marriage even
>if asked personally by the prophet.
I am afraid Joseph Smith and Brigham Young might have a problem letting
you unfaithful Mormons into heaven. Polygamy is supposed to be an
eternal principal that the church will
practice again. Remember in the last days "there will be a restoration
of all things."
And read the prophets of polygamy's writings, they speak evil things
concerning those with so little faith in this.
Besides are you saying that the saints today are more righteous than
those faithful saints that were "called" to practice polygamy? Do you
think that if they took a poll at the beginning of the church that the
men would say they wanted polygamy?
Guy R. Briggs
>>
>> An overwhelming majority of Mormon men responded that they
>> would not accept plural marriage even if asked personally
>> by the prophet.
>
> I am afraid Joseph Smith and Brigham Young might have a
> problem letting you unfaithful Mormons into heaven.
>
>
> Polygamy is supposed to be an eternal principal that the
> church will practice again.
>
Half right. It is an eternal principle, and when commanded by God,
we're supposed to obey. At all other times, it's an abomination - so
says the Book of Mormon.
>
> Remember in the last days "there will be a restoration
> of all things."
>
Including polygamy-when-authorized. That already happened, remember?
>
> And read the prophets of polygamy's writings, they speak
> evil things concerning those with so little faith in this.
>
Agreed.
>
> Besides are you saying that the saints today are more
> righteous than those faithful saints that were "called" to
> practice polygamy?
>
The other way around, I should think. They accepted it even though
they didn't like it. If the survey is accurate, we would not.
>
> Do you think that if they took a poll at the beginning of
> the church that the men would say they wanted polygamy?
>
I recall a comment by Brigham Young. Something to do with preferring
to trade places with the guest of honor at a funeral than preach
polygamy to the Saints.
bestRegards, Guy.
Greg
"john p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141050137.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Its simple John P, Mormonism's truth or falsehood hinges on one and only one
thing. Did Smith lie.
The "Living prophet" stated " It [The First Vision] either occurred or it
did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud,..........".
The problem is much of the latest evidence points to it being a fraud thus
of satan. With the ultimate consequence of a lot of people who denied
Christianity going to an everlasting hell.
Mormons are are one revelation away from eternal damnation and they know it.
And more evidence mounts each day. Of course they are paranoid and sensitive
would'nt you be ? The mormon answer to the problem is to take the Ostrich
stance, bury ones head, hope & pray for the best.
Greg
•R.L.Measures•
p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Personally, I read whatever I
>>can and pray about it.
>
>Mormons don't have a monopoly on prayer. People pray for confirmation
>of their beliefs all the time. Every one can't be right.
>
** At football games between Catholic high schools in L. A., I have
observed that the winning team is the one that out-genuflects the other
before the kickoff.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
•R.L.Measures•
<net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
• That's on earth, Guy, but this is not an option way up yonder in the
sky. Impregnation is The key to exhaltation.
Joker
G> "john p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
G> news:1141050137.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Are some people afraid to read their own history? If so why? Does
>> this site threaten some peoples testimonies? Shouldn't it reinforce
>> it? Doesn't light help a person discern the landscape--should truth
>> cause so much confusion? Why are Mormons afraid, if they are afraid,
>> to investigate their own beliefs? People of other religions don't
>> seem
>> paranoid about reading critical information concerning their faith.
G> Its simple John P, Mormonism's truth or falsehood hinges on one and
G> only one
G> thing. Did Smith lie.
G> The "Living prophet" stated " It [The First Vision] either occurred
G> or it
G> did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud,..........".
G> The problem is much of the latest evidence points to it being a
G> fraud thus
G> of satan. With the ultimate consequence of a lot of people who denied
G> Christianity going to an everlasting hell.
G> Mormons are are one revelation away from eternal damnation and they
G> know it.
G> And more evidence mounts each day. Of course they are paranoid and
G> sensitive
G> would'nt you be ? The mormon answer to the problem is to take the
G> Ostrich
G> stance, bury ones head, hope & pray for the best.
G> Greg
Ok, Greg, I'll bite, what is this evidence that the First Vision is false?
I have been doing a lot of reading and the general consensus is that no one
knows for certain since there was only three people present at the time.
You either have faith that Joseph saw what he said he saw or you don't.
There is also the case of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates and the
angel that delivered them. So again, please state your sources for the
mounting evidence.
john p
form of Christianity. I don't imagine God cares whether you are
christian or mormon or not. Mormons do believe in Jesus which is more
than I do anymore. Some don't believe in worshipping him while some
do. It isn't clear in the doctrine, but most think they should. There
are other, and better, reasons to quit being a Mormon--like cuz it
ain't true. Most Mormons are not going to quit being Mormons to
embrace another religious sect, though many find faith in other
churches after they leave, because they are to conscious of the flaws
in the beliefs of others. We, Mormons, know what is wrong with
Protestantism and Catholicism, but looking in the mirror is where we
Mormons fail. Telling Mormons they are going to burn encourages them
to not leave the church. They are not going to wake out of the dream
if they think all that dwell outside of the church are radical bible
thumpers.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>>> Sure the whole idea of being a god with lots of wives is
>>> appealing, but it just isn't true.
>>
>> Neither is your caracature of Mormonism. In fact, they
>> reported on some research in _Dialogue_ a few years back.
>> An overwhelming majority of Mormon men responded that they
>> would not accept plural marriage even if asked personally
>> by the prophet.
>
> • That's on earth, Guy, but this is not an option way up
> yonder in the sky. Impregnation is The key to exhaltation.
>
You persist in thie outright lie. Our scriprure makes it clear,
however: if you ain't poly down here there's no way you can be poly up
yonder.
bestRegards, Guy
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> I'll bite, what is this evidence that the First Vision is
> false? I have been doing a lot of reading and the general
> consensus is that no one knows for certain since there was
> only three people present at the time. You either have
> faith that Joseph saw what he said he saw or you don't.
> There is also the case of the witnesses to the Book of
> Mormon plates and the angel that delivered them. So
> again, please state your sources for the mounting evidence.
>
You have to be properly prepared for the evidence, Joker. In order to
swallow their story hook, line, and one-born-every-minute you must first
accept two propositions:
1) "14 years old" and "in my 15th year" are two different
ages. This is important because the evidence they're
going to present is the "ever-changing story" in which
Smith is a different age each time he recounts the
story.
2) The visit of angel Moroni and the visit of the Father
and the Son are the same event. Again goes to the
"ever-changing story" gambit. different ages, different
number of personages. In one story it's the Father and
the Son and Smith is 14. In another it's an angel who
shows up and Joseph is 17.
You get the idea.
bestRegards, Guy.
john p
>however: if you ain't poly down here there's no way you can be poly up
>yonder.
>bestRegards, Guy
That may be what you think but many mormons look forward to the day
when they can have an increase of wives. And it is consistent with
mormon doctrine.
God married Marry, and has posterity by her. Won't God get to keep
Marry in the after life?
He got another wife from the ones he had--according to mormon theology.
Art Bulla
Revelator) please see: http://www.artbulla.com/zion/apostasy1.html
--
Website: http://www.artbulla.com
"I am like a huge rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the
only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in
contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against
religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors,
suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed
by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women, all hell
knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus will I become a smooth
and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty." (Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 304.)
"I just tell em the truth, and they think it's hell." Harry Truman
Concerning quotes (out of context): these are distortions, taken out of the
context of
the blasphemies and insults placed upon me by the vilest of traitors and
foul wretches
imagineable. Jesus kicked their asses out of the Temple and I do the same to
all god damned liars and hypocrites. I make no apology. God is my judge. If
this fellow (Manning) were honest he would include these, and all would see
that I am
justified by the Lord in my responses. The word of the Lord is given on
the matter in the following:
Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice,
and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys
of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according
to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.
Let no one, therefore, set on my servant for I will justify him. saith the
Lord your God.
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:
Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition
of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not understand."
Dr.Samuel Johnson.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
<http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3>
Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.68
As it has always been, and will be yet for some time, when the sons
of God assemble together Satan will be on hand as an accuser of the
brethren, to find fault with those who are trying to do good.
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call
down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are
indebted
to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God
has
spoken and how much He has not spoken?" Joseph Smith
"Every generation has flattered itself that it is a little better than the
one that preceded it. Every generation has prided itself in its knowledge
and great advancement in the arts and sciences and its superiority over
preceding generations; yet the power of the adversary and his hatred of
righteousness and truth are as great to-day as they ever were since the
creation of the earth." Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.228 - Pg.229,
George Q. Cannon, May 6, 1866
"Some men are natural born saints; whenever a principle is advanced they
understand it, and drink it in; * * * while there are others who do not
understand and oppose every principle that is not clear to their mind. This
can be accounted for, that we are not all pure blooded, for Ephraim became
foolish and mixed up with the gentiles. When we find the pure blood of
Ephraim, we find a natural born child of God and there is nothing in the
gospel that is objectionable to them, but the others have to exercise faith
in God and humble themselves before Him and live for it." (Deseret Weekly,
50:250-251)
35 And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall
be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.
36 For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim,
wherefore they shall be plucked out.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 64:35 - 36)
"john p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141050137.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Joker
GRB> <snip>
>> I'll bite, what is this evidence that the First Vision is
>> false? I have been doing a lot of reading and the general
>> consensus is that no one knows for certain since there was
>> only three people present at the time. You either have
>> faith that Joseph saw what he said he saw or you don't.
>> There is also the case of the witnesses to the Book of
>> Mormon plates and the angel that delivered them. So
>> again, please state your sources for the mounting evidence.
GRB> You have to be properly prepared for the evidence, Joker. In
GRB> order to
GRB> swallow their story hook, line, and one-born-every-minute you must
GRB> first
GRB> accept two propositions:
GRB> 1) "14 years old" and "in my 15th year" are two different
GRB> ages. This is important because the evidence they're
GRB> going to present is the "ever-changing story" in which
GRB> Smith is a different age each time he recounts the
GRB> story.
GRB> 2) The visit of angel Moroni and the visit of the Father
GRB> and the Son are the same event. Again goes to the
GRB> "ever-changing story" gambit. different ages, different
GRB> number of personages. In one story it's the Father and
GRB> the Son and Smith is 14. In another it's an angel who
GRB> shows up and Joseph is 17.
GRB> You get the idea.
I get it, you have to look at the "I was about such and such age". I have
read the reprinted source documents and found little of contradiction. The
only account written by Joseph was in 1832 and was quite abbreviated. I
thought it was strange, but realized through most of his life, Joseph rarely
wrote things down himself (lack of education?) and while it was an important
event, it apparently did not occur to him to make a detailed account soon
after it occurred. It would have been nice if he had.
--
Joker
"...God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me."
Gen. 21:6
GRB> bestRegards, Guy.
•R.L.Measures•
p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
*** The only vote that counted in the polygamy matter was that cast by
Joseph's trouser snake.
Gregg Smith
> That may be what you think but many mormons look forward to the day
> when they can have an increase of wives. And it is consistent with
> mormon doctrine.
I doubt your credentials to speak for many Mormons, especially, since your
characterization does not match reality.
> God married Marry, and has posterity by her.
I don't know which Church teaches this, but I know for certain it's not an
LDS doctrine.
> He got another wife from the ones he had--according to mormon theology.
Please substantiate this assertion from official LDS doctrinal sources or
substantiate your good character by retracting it.
Gregg
John Miles
"Joker" <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in message yN2Nf.61702$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> post_...@sbcglobal.net ("Joker") wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>>> I'll bite, what is this evidence that the First Vision is
>>> false? I have been doing a lot of reading and the general
>>> consensus is that no one knows for certain since there was
>>> only three people present at the time. You either have
>>> faith that Joseph saw what he said he saw or you don't.
>>> There is also the case of the witnesses to the Book of
>>> Mormon plates and the angel that delivered them. So
>>> again, please state your sources for the mounting evidence.
>
>> You have to be properly prepared for the evidence, Joker. In
>> order to
>> swallow their story hook, line, and one-born-every-minute you must
>> first
>> accept two propositions:
>
>> 1) "14 years old" and "in my 15th year" are two different
>> ages. This is important because the evidence they're
>> going to present is the "ever-changing story" in which
>> Smith is a different age each time he recounts the
>> story.
>
>> 2) The visit of angel Moroni and the visit of the Father
>> and the Son are the same event. Again goes to the
>> "ever-changing story" gambit. different ages, different
>> number of personages. In one story it's the Father and
>> the Son and Smith is 14. In another it's an angel who
>> shows up and Joseph is 17.
>
>> You get the idea.
>
> I get it, you have to look at the "I was about such and such age".
> I have read the reprinted source documents and found little of
> contradiction. The only account written by Joseph was in 1832 and
> was quite abbreviated. I thought it was strange, but realized
> through most of his life, Joseph rarely wrote things down himself
> (lack of education?) and while it was an important event, it
> apparently did not occur to him to make a detailed account soon after
> it occurred. It would have been nice if he had.
It would certainly have been a purely personal event until many years
later when the organization of the Church and formal effort to document
its history made him feel the need to write a formal account of the
vision to indicate the role he thought it played relevant to that
history.
BTW, "14 years old" and "in my 15th year" are exactly the same age, just
as the 1900's and the 20th century are the same century. During your
1st year you were 0 years old. Wasn't sure if that was clear to you
(and sorry for the clarification if it was =).
--John
john p
>characterization does not match reality.
How do you want me to substantiate my experiences? Should I go
backward in time and tape record every mormon guy who expressed a
boyish delight in the hope for a world with many wives? It has even
entered into mormon subculture--I assert--with my own authority from my
own experiences. Many women have had the talk with their husband
saying they will not share him with future wives, so I have heard with
my own ears. And no I am not going to go out and take a poll to
substantiate that. I believe you KNOW I am right on this. I doubt
that you have never overheard those conversations among members.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> You persist in thie outright lie. Our scriprure makes it
>> clear, however: if you ain't poly down here there's no way
>> you can be poly up yonder.
>
> That may be what you think ...
>
I can show you the scripture, John. It isn't at all ambiguous.
>
> ... but many mormons look forward to the day when they can
> have an increase of wives.
>
Really? Name one outside of the few crackpot fundamentalists who
wander around these parts.
>
> And it is consistent with mormon doctrine.
>
Being given wives in the CK is not at all consistent with LdS
doctrine. In addition to the bit about needing to be married plurally
here on earth for it to be in effect up there, there's the bit about
"neither marrying nor giving in marriage" which is in both the New
Testament /and/ the D&C.
There are no new marriages in the Celestial Kingdom.
>
> God married Marry, and has posterity by her. Won't God get
> to keep Marry in the after life? He got another wife from
> the ones he had--according to mormon theology.
>
BZZZZZZT! Wrong! But thanks so much for playing. We have a lovely
parting gift.
bestRegards, Guy (who knows there's only one "r" in Mary)
john p
>doctrine. In addition to the bit about needing to be married plural
>"neither marrying nor giving in marriage" which is in both the New
>Testament /and/ the D&C.
Then how are those women in this life who never had a chance to mary
:-) supposed to marry?
Haven't they been promised that they will get the chance?
>> God married Marry, and has posterity by her. Won't God get
> >to keep Marry in the after life? He got another wife from
> >the ones he had--according to mormon theology.
>BZZZZZZT! Wrong! But thanks so much for playing. We have a lovely
>parting gift.
You deny that god married Mary? Did he have adulterous relationship
or do you think he got her pregnant through artificial insemination?
Guy R. Briggs
>>
>> LdS doctrine. In addition to the bit about needing to be
>> married plural here on earth for it to be in effect up
>> there, there's the bit about "neither marrying nor giving
>> in marriage" which is in both the New Testament /and/ the
>> D&C.
>
> Then how are those women in this life who never had a
> chance to mary :-) supposed to marry? Haven't they been
> promised that they will get the chance?
>
Any adjustments to be made - such as those unfortunate sisters you
mention - will all happen during the Millenium, not in the Celestial
Kingdom.
>>>
>>> God married Marry, and has posterity by her. Won't God get
>>> to keep Marry in the after life? He got another wife from
>>> the ones he had--according to mormon theology.
>>
>> BZZZZZZT! Wrong! But thanks so much for playing. We have a
>> lovely parting gift.
>
> You deny that god married Mary? Did he have adulterous
> relationship
>
Doctrine on the subject is that Christ is literal Son of God. How the
genetic material got there has not been revealed. But Nephi, in vision,
describes Mary as a virgin without the vagueries of the Hebrew. This
rules out, at least from a doctrinal perspective, any form of physical
sex.
>
> ... or do you think he got her pregnant through artificial
> insemination?
>
A woman can get pregnant via a petri dish, and that doesn't require a
miracle of any sort. Simply good lab technique. Do you not suppose God
the Father might be capable of something better?
bestRegards, Guy.
john p
Your playing word games. I never asked specifically about the
Celestial Kingdom. God obviously didn't have to be in the CK when he
knocked up Mary, did he? But he as a new wife. Ugly women get a
second chance of marriage in the Millenium. So how do you figure that
guys who were denied the spiritual blessings of plural wives will not
be given a chance in the Millenium? Or after they are like god
knocking up young engaged teens?
john ( who knows there are two "n's" in Millennium if you insist on
being picky about spelling)
john p
Your playing word games. I never asked specifically about the
Celestial Kingdom. God obviously didn't have to be in the CK when he
knocked up Mary, did he? But he as a new wife. Ugly women get a
second chance of marriage in the Millenium. So how do you figure that
guys who were denied the spiritual blessings of plural wives will not
be given a chance in the Millenium? Or after they are like god
populating planets and knocking up young engaged teens?
•R.L.Measures•
p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't think Mormons are close to being damned, for having a bizarre
>form of Christianity. I don't imagine God cares whether you are
>christian or mormon or not. Mormons do believe in Jesus ...
• Lip service. Jesus was anti-mammon, The Mormonite church is
pro-mammon. When Time Magazine was writing the article on the LDS church,
church Authorities were proud to show off that they had a portfolio of c.
$30,000-Million.
•R.L.Measures•
<net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures•) wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>> john....@gmail.com ("john p") wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Sure the whole idea of being a god with lots of wives is
>>>> appealing, but it just isn't true.
>>>
>>> Neither is your caracature of Mormonism. In fact, they
>>> reported on some research in _Dialogue_ a few years back.
>>> An overwhelming majority of Mormon men responded that they
>>> would not accept plural marriage even if asked personally
>>> by the prophet.
>>
>> • That's on earth, Guy, but this is not an option way up
>> yonder in the sky. Impregnation is The key to exhaltation.
>>
> You persist in thie outright lie. Our scriprure makes it clear,
• When J. Smith, Jr. was living with the Partridge sisters and the
Lawerence sisters, (c. April. 1843) The Lord - or quite possibly Smith's
Jacob's gland - reportedly revealed to him that plural marriage was the
right path to true glory.
>however: if you ain't poly down here there's no way you can be poly up
>yonder.
>
• It is common knowledge that hundreds of women were "sealed" to J.
Smith, Jr. after he died in the shootout at the Carthage Jail. As I see
it, Guy, you could easily wind up servicing 50 babes with perfect bodies
in the Celestial Kingdom -- provided you is paid up of course.
have fun with your God promotion. cheers
john p
>>form of Christianity. I don't imagine God cares whether you are
>>christian or mormon or not. Mormons do believe in Jesus ...
> Lip service. Jesus was anti-mammon, The Mormonite church is
>pro-mammon. When Time Magazine was writing the article on the LDS church,
>church Authorities were proud to show off that they had a portfolio of c.
>$30,000-Million.
Right, mormons are going to hell cuz their church has money. Genius
John Manning
In my 35 years in Utah [I'm now in Brazil], I've observed that money is
a primary cultural incentive for Mormons and that it often overshadows
what Christ actually taught about it.
•R.L.Measures•
p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
*** Who the hell said they were going there?
•R.L.Measures•
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
• Indeed, John, LDSim teaches that mo' money means that one has mo'
divine approval.
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Your playing word games. I never asked specifically about
> the Celestial Kingdom.
>
monogamy is "not an option" and "impregnation is The key to
exhaltation" "way up yonder in the sky". This is the same knucklehead
who dishonestly refers to the Celestial Kingdom as a "celestial
copulatorium."
So yes, we /were/ talking about the CK.
>
> God obviously didn't have to be in the CK when he knocked
> up Mary, did he?
>
Not going to dignify that with a response.
>
> But he as a new wife.
>
IIRC, the scriptures say that Mary was married to Joseph.
>
> Ugly women get a second chance of marriage in the
> Millenium.
>
That's rather unkind, as well. Men /and/ women who - for whatever
reason - did not get the chance to marry during their earth lives, will
get the chance to find a mate during the Millennium. As will new
children born during the Millennium, when they're old enough.
That said, I rather doubt that any new polygamous marriages will be
formed during the Millennium - but if there are, it will still be done
in a temple here on earth before it can be in effect the the Celestial
Kingdom, no?
>
> So how do you figure that guys who were denied the
> spiritual blessings of plural wives will not be given a
> chance in the Millenium?
>
Simple math. For polygamy to be the norm, there must be twice as many
women as men - which is true whether we're talking about earth life
during the Millennium or exhalted life in the Celestial Kingdom. In
reality, there are almost equal number of men and women. And no reason
to suppose that twice as many women qualify or resurrection during the
Millenium or for entrance to the CK.
Secondly, the stated purpose of plural marriage is to "raise up
seed" - that is, God is trying to establish and grow a small group of
believers. During the Millennium, He won't need to do that, because
/everybody/ will be a believer.
>
> Or after they are like god knocking up young engaged teens?
>
"Knocking up" implies a physical act - which you've not yet
established in the case of the conception of Jesus.
>
> john ( who knows there are two "n's" in Millennium if you
> insist on being picky about spelling)
>
Ha! I suppose I deserved that, eh? ;0)
bestRegards, Guy (who notes that if you know how to spell millennium,
you ought to spell it that way)
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>>> • That's on earth, Guy, but this is not an option way up
>>> yonder in the sky. Impregnation is The key to exhaltation.
>>
>> You persist in thie outright lie. Our scriprure makes it
>> clear, ...
>
> • When J. Smith, Jr. was living with the Partridge sisters
> and the Lawerence sisters, (c. April. 1843) The Lord - or
> quite possibly Smith's Jacob's gland - reportedly revealed
> to him that plural marriage was the right path to true
> glory.
>
Without speculation as to Smith's carnal knowledge (or lack thereof)
of the Lawerence sisters, what could this possibly have to do with
whether or not new marriages are formed in the CK - contra LdS and
mainstream scripture on the subject?
>>
>> ... however: if you ain't poly down here there's no way
>> you can be poly up yonder.
>
> • It is common knowledge that hundreds of women were
> "sealed" to J.Smith, Jr. after he died in the shootout at
> the Carthage Jail.
>
Which practice has long since been abandoned by the Church. So again
I ask, what has this to do with whether new unions are formed in the
Celestial Kingdom? Especially when you remember that final judgement -
and, by definition, entry into the Celestial Kingdom - is an event that
will take place /after/ the Millennium (Rev.20:12)
>
> As I see it, Guy, you could easily wind up servicing 50
> babes with perfect bodies in the Celestial Kingdom --
> provided you is paid up of course.
>
You see it wrong. As usual.
bestRegards, Guy.
Gerald Bostock
·R.L.Measures· wrote:
> In article <1141143379.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "john
> p" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think Mormons are close to being damned, for having a bizarre
> >form of Christianity. I don't imagine God cares whether you are
> >christian or mormon or not. Mormons do believe in Jesus ...
>
> · Lip service. Jesus was anti-mammon, The Mormonite church is
> pro-mammon. When Time Magazine was writing the article on the LDS church,
> church Authorities were proud to show off that they had a portfolio of c.
> $30,000-Million.
$30,000,000,000 for emphasis
John Miles
> Guy>Not in the Celestial Kingdom they haven't.
[snip]
> So how do you figure that
> guys who were denied the spiritual blessings of plural wives will not
> be given a chance in the Millenium?
The only guidance scripture gives as to when the Lord commands plural
marriage is when he has the need to "raise up seed." (Jac 2:30). Given
the gospel will by then have flooded the earth with the knowledge of the
Lord, that won't be a problem in the Millennium.
Just curious, john p, did you really base your decisions of what was
doctrinal based on what other members thought, correctly or incorrectly,
or did you search the scriptures for the needed insight yourself & come
to your own conclusions. After all, one of the most basic of doctrinal
tenets is to "prove [Gr "put to the test"] all things" by the Holy
Ghost:
Perhaps you missed this injunction:
2 Ne. 28: 31 - Cursed is he that putteth his
trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall
hearken unto the precepts of men, save their
precepts shall be given by the power of the
Holy Ghost.
and this descriptive note of the latter-day condition and Church as
well:
2 Ne. 28: 14 - They wear stiff necks and high
heads; yea, and because of pride, and
wickedness, and abominations, and
whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it
be a few, who are the humble followers of
Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many
instances they do err because they are taught
by the precepts of men.
or the counsel of our prophets:
"It makes no difference what is written or
what anyone has said, if what has been said
is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed,
we can set it aside. My words, and the
teachings of any other member of the Church,
high or low, if they do not square with the
revelations, we need not accept them. Let us
have this matter clear. We have accepted the
four standard works as the measuring
yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure
every man's doctrine." [Joseph Fielding Smith,
_Doctrines of Salvation_, 3:203]
So in the end, it really does boil down to our own personal free agency
and ability to follow the Spirit. I liked this from J. Reuben Clark:
"The question is, how shall we know when the
things they [the Brethren] have spoken were said
as they were 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost?'
"I have been giving some thought to this question,
and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is:
We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by
the Holy Ghost' only when we ourselves, are
'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'
"In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility
from them to us to determine when they so speak."
("When Are Church Leader's Words Entitled to
Claim of Scripture," _Church News_, 31 July 1954,
p. 9.)
Another from President Harold B. Lee:
"We can know that they [the living prophets]
are speaking under inspiration if we so live that
we can have a witness that what they are speaking
is the word of the Lord. THERE IS ONLY ONE
SAFETY [i.e., here's the key!], and that is that we
shall live to have the witness [of the Spirit] to know."
("The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and
Revelator," in _Charge_ [op. cit.], p. 111.
Emphasis mine.)
And that is how it should be in a Church which emphasizes the free
agency and personal responsibility (the opposite of blind obedience) of
mankind.
Perhaps your "curse" is the constant disappointment and disillusionment
you feel with the gospel based on what others tell you rather than
depending on your own spiritual capacities to discern, using the
scriptures as the "standard" by which to judge your progress.
--John
--
"[T]herefore...with all thy getting get understanding." --Prov. 4:7
John Manning
"Raise up seed" is a bullshit justification for polygamy. It doesn't
appear anywhere in the Bible in reference to having lots of wives. The
Mormons made it up.
>
> --John
>
john p
>divine approval.
I was being slow. I think that I get your point now and I agree--the
church AND its members are greedy and neglect those in need.
Gregg Smith
> >I doubt your credentials to speak for many Mormons, especially, since
> >your
>>characterization does not match reality.
>
> How do you want me to substantiate my experiences? Should I go
> backward in time and tape record every mormon guy who expressed a
> boyish delight in the hope for a world with many wives?
Hearsay does not qualify you to speak for many Mormons.
> It has even
> entered into mormon subculture--I assert--with my own authority from my
> own experiences.
Ah, another unsubstantiated assertion. Next.
Gregg
john p
I am not on trial. I am free to state reality according to my
legitimate experiences. Besides you don't exist. I prayed about it
and the angel told me that you are not a person, but an evil spirit.
John Miles
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:EN2dndYOx_I...@giganews.com...
You lost me here. The Bible makes clear the Lord
approved of polygamy (the ancient patriarchs).
>The Mormons made it up.
"The question is, how shall we know when the
things they [the Brethren] have spoken were said
as they were 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost?'
"I have been giving some thought to this question,
and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is:
We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by
the Holy Ghost' only when we ourselves, are
'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'
"In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility
from them to us to determine when they so speak."
(J. Reuben Clark, "When Are Church Leader's
Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture," _Church
News_, 31 July 1954, p. 9.)
"We can know that they [the living prophets]
are speaking under inspiration if we so live that
we can have a witness that what they are speaking
is the word of the Lord. THERE IS ONLY ONE
SAFETY [i.e., here's the key!], and that is that we
shall live to have the witness [of the Spirit] to know."
(Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet,
Seer, and Revelator," in _Charge_ [op. cit.], p. 111.
Emphasis mine.)
The previous post already anticipated your objection.
--John
--
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who
never had faith enough to call down one
scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all
they have now are indebted to the faith of
another people...does it remain for them to
say how much God has spoken and how
much He has not spoken?" --Joseph Smith
John Miles
You really disappoint me, john. It is one thing to "dwindle in
unbelief." It is another to embrace the spirit of apostasy. Could you
provide any evidence that you are not dissembling here?
--John
--
"Of the seven deadly sins, anger is possibly the most fun. To lick your
wounds, to smack your lips over grievances long past, to roll over your
tongue the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, to savor to
the last toothsome morsel both the pain you are given and the pain you
are giving back--in many ways it is a feast fit for a king. The chief
drawback is that what you are wolfing down is yourself. The skeleton at
the feast is you." --Frederick Buechner (Wishful Thinking, Harper & Row)
John Manning
Christ did away with the old laws.
>
>
>>The Mormons made it up.
>
>
> "The question is, how shall we know when the
> things they [the Brethren] have spoken were said
> as they were 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost?'
> "I have been giving some thought to this question,
> and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is:
> We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by
> the Holy Ghost' only when we ourselves, are
> 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'
> "In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility
> from them to us to determine when they so speak."
> (J. Reuben Clark, "When Are Church Leader's
> Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture," _Church
> News_, 31 July 1954, p. 9.)
>
> "We can know that they [the living prophets]
> are speaking under inspiration if we so live that
> we can have a witness that what they are speaking
> is the word of the Lord. THERE IS ONLY ONE
> SAFETY [i.e., here's the key!], and that is that we
> shall live to have the witness [of the Spirit] to know."
> (Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet,
> Seer, and Revelator," in _Charge_ [op. cit.], p. 111.
> Emphasis mine.)
>
> The previous post already anticipated your objection.
Those are two Mormon sources. The Mormons invented their religion.
Mormonism is a homemade religion.
>
> --John
>
John Miles
in message J8OdnSGkh62...@giganews.com...
Only those dealing specifically with the law of Moses. The gospel
(i.e., "Christianity") was preached to the ancient patriarchs (including
Moses, himself) long before the law of Moses was ever instituted. But
at least you agree that God can approve of polygamy (actually, polygyny)
when he so deems it necessary.
Actually, God restored it. How do you propose to discern truth if not
by the power of the Holy Spirit?
John Manning
Nope. Smith invented it. Christ never taught of secret Masonic
handshakes, special underwear, death oaths, blood atonement, polygamy,
peculiar temple garments like aprons with fig leaves, etc., etc. Smith
made that stuff up, along with the fictitious Book of Mormon. His Book
of Abraham is a clear and obvious embarrassment.
> How do you propose to discern truth if not
> by the power of the Holy Spirit?
Apparently the Mormon version of the Holy Spirit confirms many things
that contradict each other, even to the Mormon brethren. Art Bulla and
his flunky Jong Kim are examples, albeit extreme ones.
The Holy Spirit is ALSO experienced in *other* Christian faiths, and
confirms *their* faith - apart from Mormonism. Greg from Australia is an
excellent example.
Get off your high horse, Mr. Miles.
And as far as discerning the truth? Follow what Christ Himself said, NOT
the human interpreters who belong to exclusionary clubs for God.
Greg, again for example, finds the Holy Spirit in different Christian
denominations - and limits his views to none of them in particular.
Neither does the Holy Spirit. The Body of Christ *ISN'T* any specific
humanly contrived religious group.
The Holy Spirit is the life and breath of all of humanity, whether they
are aware of it or not.
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God
should come, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of God COMETH *NOT*
WITH OBSERVATION: {21} Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you". (caps added)
Luke 17:20-21 [KJV]
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all
these things shall be added unto you."
Matthew 6:33 [KJV]
The Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God is recognized and discerned in
this manner. NOT by the dictates of a humanly run organization. Don't
forget about the 'COMETH *NOT* WITH OBSERVATION' part. It's WITHIN you.
That's the Christian basis of actually *knowing* the truth. It stands on
It's own when realized, and IT is self-evident. It's genuine on It's
own, and untainted by human bias. And It's universal, just like God is
forever universal. And It's characterized by God's Love for ALL of
humanity.
>
> --John
>
Gregg Smith
> John Miles wrote:
>> Actually, God restored it.
>
> Nope. Smith invented it.
You sound exactly how the Sanhedrin must have sounded when faced with the
teachings of Christ.
> Christ never taught of secret Masonic handshakes, special underwear, death
> oaths, blood atonement, polygamy, peculiar temple garments like aprons
> with fig leaves, etc., etc.
Change the topics somewhat and these become the same accusations leveled
against almost every Old Testament prophet by the Israelites.
>> How do you propose to discern truth if not
>> by the power of the Holy Spirit?
>
> Apparently the Mormon version of the Holy Spirit confirms many things
> that contradict each other, even to the Mormon brethren. Art Bulla and his
> flunky Jong Kim are examples, albeit extreme ones.
Extremists are not reflective of the actual teachings of the LDS Church any
more than they are reflective of the actual teachings of any other religion
or sect.
> The Holy Spirit is ALSO experienced in *other* Christian faiths, and
> confirms *their* faith - apart from Mormonism.
Yes and no. The Holy Spirit confirms spiritual truth to anyone and there is
some spiritual truth in most world religions, even the non-Christian ones.
However, the CotMC who do not ridicule the idea of confirmation of spiritual
truth via the Holy Spirit are few and far between, which seems to undermine
your point.
> Greg from Australia is an excellent example.
He is an excellent example of someone who does not presently understand LDS
doctrine.
> Get off your high horse, Mr. Miles.
Mote - his, beam - yours.
> And as far as discerning the truth? Follow what Christ Himself said, NOT
> the human interpreters who belong to exclusionary clubs for God.
I imagine this is the same way ancient Israel characterized the prophets
sent by God.
> Greg, again for example, finds the Holy Spirit in different Christian
> denominations - and limits his views to none of them in particular.
> Neither does the Holy Spirit. The Body of Christ *ISN'T* any specific
> humanly contrived religious group.
It would seem such a viewpoint should include, not exclude, the LDS Church.
Gregg
john p
Gregg Smith wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:S9ednVrC7OOu_JbZ...@giganews.com...
> > John Miles wrote:
>
> >> Actually, God restored it.
> >
> > Nope. Smith invented it.
>
> You sound exactly how the Sanhedrin must have sounded when faced with the
> teachings of Christ.
>
Sanhedrin, and he isn't a bad man.
Gregg Smith
John, you almost substantiate that you do not understand comparitive
thinking.
Gregg