A CHALLENGE: Mormons, tell us Christians what you REALLY believe!
checker
we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
So here is your opportunity!!!
Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
emotional feeling)?
b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
c. What "family" you hope to be with when you die? Yourself, your
spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
HOW do you think that could possibly work?
d. Do you REALLY BELIEVE you are "Christians" in the generally
accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
Here is your opportunity to show what you REALLY believe, and not to
be misrepresented.
We DO reserve the right to ask questions and provide counterpoints,
however.
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
etgel
che...@flipper.com wrote:
> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
I'm not Mormon, but I'll bite anyway.
>
> So here is your opportunity!!!
>
> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
> emotional feeling)?
It says in the book of genisis (paraphrasing) "A river flows eastward
from eden and from thence it parts into 3 heads, the first is the river
Pison..."
I do symbolism, and I believe that this describes the"three degrees of
glory" that Joseph Smith speaks of. I have yet to find anyone else who
even gets close.
> b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
Flat out fraud. Poor Joseph should have just couched his revelation in
the wrapper of
"Hey folks I have a new revelation about Abraham"
> c. What "family" you hope to be with when you die? Yourself, your
> spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
> HOW do you think that could possibly work?
Tricky one... I think Joseph had "very nice" views on heaven. I tend to
think that no man can seal something for "time and all eternity" but I
do not discount that God can. If I understand the "Holy Spirit of
Promise" stuff correctly it isn't man who does the heavy lifting it IS
God.
Thus to teach that Eternal Family is a goal is in my mind a good thing,
as long as folks don't get too haughty about it. (Read my post on
Nostrudamus weighs in on temple")
> d. Do you REALLY BELIEVE you are "Christians" in the generally
> accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
I feel that any time a church tells it's people what to believe, they
are doing the people a dis-service. What intreagues me about Mormonsim
on this count is that they (Moreso in the past than now) taught the
people to ask God for themselves. They did this better than most.
>
> Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
> between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
I personally think that all organized religions will fall before the
end, that includes you fundamentalist Christians.
I feel that it is time for people to have their own ears and their own
eyes, and wean themselves from reliance on "The Body of Christ"
>
> Here is your opportunity to show what you REALLY believe, and not to
> be misrepresented.
>
> We DO reserve the right to ask questions and provide counterpoints,
> however.
Just do not bore me with a shopping cart full of scriptures, I can
think for myself.
>
> in the Name of Jesus,
> Checker
Etgel
dianaiad
che...@flipper.com wrote:
> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>
> So here is your opportunity!!!
>
> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
Go to <http://www.lds.org> and look.
Or ask the missionaries to come and talk to you.
listentoairamerica
Please ask them for the meat before the milk. Because you will get the
fluff before thay give the real "wacked out beliefs". That was my
mistake, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice same on me. They wont
get a second chance.
Alan B.
> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>
> So here is your opportunity!!!
Checker,
You speak as though "Mormons" owe you something or that they need to
answer to you. You speak as though you're in some authoritative
position to require some kind of accounting from your peon
subordinates. You speak as though you have some kind of ownership in
this newsgroup, when in actuality, it was created for "Mormons" to get
together and discuss whatever--not antagonists to come in, spewing
patronizing and condescending, regurgitated points that most of us have
already heard and/or read, and dealt with, quite managebly. But,
arrogant and hostile jerks like you come along and ruin it. Ever
notice that only cantankerous and "eye for an eye"-types like myself
really only frequent this forum? And even then, I only show up when
I've got nothing better to do. You'll never find any typical "Mormons"
on this forum because they don't have time for your self-righteous
stupidity.
Your invitation carries with it the same kind of hostility and
immaturity of an inner-city gangsta inviting a rival gang to a "rumble"
(or whatever modern-day homies call it). "Hey, all you stupid Mormons!
I"m a Christian! Come out here so I can kick your ass for believing
the stupid things that you believe in!"
Christ really went around with that kind of attitude, didn't He? He
certainly went around putting people on the defensive and taunting
them, didn't He? That type of behavior usually emanated from the
Pharisees and Saducees, didn't it? You simply exposed yourself for
what you really are--someone who professes with his mouth, but
inwardly, is another story.
Are you actually for real? Nice try.
Iosepa Hawaii Loa
> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>
> So here is your opportunity!!!
I'm 6th or 7th generation LdS, including some famous and infamous names.
I have a degree in Computer Science, and my dad has a PhD in Biology and
related fields. I do not believe I am one of the stereotypical "Morbots"
or "sheeple". I do not believe that "most correct book" means it has to
be error free, nor do I believe the phrase "as far as it is translated
correctly" nullifies the usefulness of the Bible.
> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
> emotional feeling)?
I grew up LdS, read the Book of Mormon dozens of times, etc. However, I
never got a satisfactory answer when applying Moroni's challenge. It
"seemed" true, but I didn't get that burning in the bosom people always
talk about. My testimony was that I *believe* instead of I *know*.
That was fine growing up, but I wasn't going to put my life on hold for
two years to preach something I didn't _know_ for myself. Every night in
my personal prayers I asked for an answer one way or the other. Finally
after a month, a voice entered my head and told me that I've always known
it to be true. That was good enough for me to change *believe* to *know*
in my testimony, and that testimony served me well on my mission.
> b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
This is a hard question to answer. The most satisfactory response I've
encountered is that we don't know what Joseph really meant with the word
"translate". For instance, no ancient documents were consulted in the
creation of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. It has been
conceded that much of the Book of Mormon was dictated without looking at
the characters on the golden plates.
> c. What "family" you hope to be with when you die? Yourself, your
> spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
> HOW do you think that could possibly work?
It is my personal opinion that we will live with our spouse. We will be
able to visit our children, parents, and other relations.
> d. Do you REALLY BELIEVE you are "Christians" in the generally
> accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
I know that many in the mainstream don't consider us Christian. I know
most LdS feel offended at this exclusion, because Jesus is at the center
of our teachings. Ultimately, what the Lord thinks will matter more than
who you or I call "Christian".
> Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
> between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
We believe we are a living Church, which means we reserve the right to
change as our understanding deepens or we receive new revelation.
Iosepa
--
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono.
:The life (sovereignty) of the land is perpetuated in (by) righteousness.
dianaiad
Alan B. wrote:
> On Oct 15, 5:01 pm, checker @flipper.com wrote:
> > Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> > we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> > religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
> >
> > So here is your opportunity!!!
>
> Checker,
>
> You speak as though "Mormons" owe you something or that they need to
> answer to you. You speak as though you're in some authoritative
> position to require some kind of accounting from your peon
> subordinates. You speak as though you have some kind of ownership in
> this newsgroup, when in actuality, it was created for "Mormons" to get
> together and discuss whatever--not antagonists to come in, spewing
> patronizing and condescending, regurgitated points that most of us have
> already heard and/or read, and dealt with, quite managebly.
<snip to end>
I love your post. You are quite right, and I approve. I just wanted to
correct one small misapprehension on your part...alt.religion.mormon
WAS created precisely for the reason you claim it wasn't. It was
created by a couple of non-Mormons for the purpose of getting all the
arguments about Mormonism off of alt.religion.christian. If it were
created by and for Mormons, do you think that it would have been
alt.religion.mormon? No. WE would have insisted upon
alt.religion.christian.mormon. We got sideswiped. Nope, this group is
for arguing about Mormonism.
The group that is for Mormons to get together and talk to each other is
alt.religion.mormon.fellowship. However, since the same people who are
bashing Mormons and Mormonism in HERE are also in THERE, and being just
as nasty, as condescending and downright insulting as they are here,
I'd say your point is valid anyway. I just wanted to give you a heads
up on this, since, trust me, you WILL be corrected by some anti with a
"gotcha" complex.
Diana
Alan B.
>I just wanted to give you a heads
> up on this, since, trust me, you WILL be corrected by some anti with a
> "gotcha" complex.
>
> Diana
Thank you, Diana. I have no problem admitting I was taking a shot in
the dark with the presumption. As you said, though, it pretty much is
irrelevant, with regards to the real point, which is: typical 'born
again's are just as arrogant, prideful, condescending and hard-hearted
as were Pharisees and Saducees, if not, moreso.
Jesus simply did not treat others the way many of these self-righteous
bigots treat those with whom they disagree. Jesus was not an
aggressor. Neither are Mormons, for the most part. 'Born again's
typically are aggressors. So were Pharisees, Scribes and a host of
others who frequently persecuted and even killed others for having the
beliefs that they had.
Hmmmm. Pretty clear to me.
glea...@hotmail.com
Unfortunatly it is true what is said
"Our country is never so divided as it is on sunday"
Any other day we would all be pretty much on the same side of things.
checker
>
>che...@flipper.com wrote:
>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>>
>> So here is your opportunity!!!
>>
>> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
>> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>> emotional feeling)?<snip the rest of "have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions>
>
<snipped your link>
It wasn't a question of what does the mormon church "officially"
teach, but what do YOU believe?
Checker
checker
>On Oct 15, 5:01 pm, checker @flipper.com wrote:
>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>>
>> So here is your opportunity!!!
>
>Checker,
>
>You speak as though "Mormons" owe you something or that they need to
>answer to you. You speak as though you're in some authoritative
>position to require some kind of accounting from your peon
>subordinates.
1 Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to
give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear.
KJV
Col 4:6
6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may know how you ought to answer each one.
NKJV
Doesn't your religion believe in obeying the Bible?
They SAY they do.
> You speak as though you have some kind of ownership in
>this newsgroup, when in actuality, it was created for "Mormons" to get
>together and discuss whatever--not antagonists to come in, spewing
>patronizing and condescending, regurgitated points that most of us have
>already heard and/or read, and dealt with, quite managebly.
The truth is that this is a newsgroup for DISCUSSING mormonism, and
EVERYONE is welcome here. You have a separate newsgroup for "mormon
fellowship," but I was invited by a mormon to gothere too. I don't
hang out there though.
My question was honest and straightforward. You have no reason for
your rant.
>But,
>arrogant and hostile jerks like you come along and ruin it.
Asking honest and straightforward questions does not make me arrogant
OR hostile. YOUR attitude is clearly both arrogant AND hostile. Go
figure.
>Ever
>notice that only cantankerous and "eye for an eye"-types like myself
>really only frequent this forum? And even then, I only show up when
>I've got nothing better to do. You'll never find any typical "Mormons"
>on this forum because they don't have time for your self-righteous
>stupidity.
I have seen mormons here in this newsgroup who are just like my mormon
neighbors and friends. I have also seen a few frustrated, angry folks
like yourself.
>
>Your invitation carries with it the same kind of hostility and
>immaturity of an inner-city gangsta inviting a rival gang to a "rumble"
>(or whatever modern-day homies call it). "Hey, all you stupid Mormons!
> I"m a Christian! Come out here so I can kick your ass for believing
>the stupid things that you believe in!"
That's an interesting (although completely bogus) theory anyway. Your
own hostility and immaturity is showing. . .
>
>Christ really went around with that kind of attitude, didn't He? He
>certainly went around putting people on the defensive and taunting
>them, didn't He? That type of behavior usually emanated from the
>Pharisees and Saducees, didn't it? You simply exposed yourself for
>what you really are--someone who professes with his mouth, but
>inwardly, is another story.
Did Jesus never "put people on the defensive?" Let's see:
Matt 3:7
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his
baptism, he said to them,"Brood of vipers !
NKJV
Matt 23:27-30
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like
whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside
are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also
outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of
hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not
have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'
NKJV
OF COURSE, Jesus must not have done ANYTHING like this according to
you. . .
What are we Christians to do?
Col 4:5-6
6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may know how you ought to answer each one.
NKJV
1 Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to
give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear
KJV
>
So you have nothing to offer, but like to spout off angerly at every
opportunity yourself. Go figure.
Perhaps you should reconsider your nastiness and simply respond
honestly with what you believe.
Then we might have something to discuss.
checker
Matt 23:27-30
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like
whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside
are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also
outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of
hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not
have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'
NKJV
Matt 3:7
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his
baptism, he said to them,"Brood of vipers !
NKJV
John 2:13-15
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep
and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made
a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep
and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the
tables.
NKJV
You would have Jesus become a "Johnny-milquetoast" who wanted to
always be "politically correct," wouldn't you?
LOL!
Jesus wasn't like that!
in the name of Jesus,
Checker
checker
<ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:01:42 -0600, checker wrote:
>
>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>>
>> So here is your opportunity!!!
>
>I'm 6th or 7th generation LdS, including some famous and infamous names.
>I have a degree in Computer Science, and my dad has a PhD in Biology and
>related fields. I do not believe I am one of the stereotypical "Morbots"
>or "sheeple". I do not believe that "most correct book" means it has to
>be error free, nor do I believe the phrase "as far as it is translated
>correctly" nullifies the usefulness of the Bible.
I too have my degrees, and I do not believe I am a "bot" either. So
let's stop pounding our chests and get down to the business at hand,
shall we? :-)
>
>> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
>> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>> emotional feeling)?
>
>I grew up LdS, read the Book of Mormon dozens of times, etc. However, I
>never got a satisfactory answer when applying Moroni's challenge. It
>"seemed" true, but I didn't get that burning in the bosom people always
>talk about. My testimony was that I *believe* instead of I *know*.
>
>That was fine growing up, but I wasn't going to put my life on hold for
>two years to preach something I didn't _know_ for myself. Every night in
>my personal prayers I asked for an answer one way or the other. Finally
>after a month, a voice entered my head and told me that I've always known
>it to be true. That was good enough for me to change *believe* to *know*
>in my testimony, and that testimony served me well on my mission.
That sounds like the psychological practice of "if you tell yourself
something is true often enough and long enough, you will probably
convince yourself that it is true, eventually." If I remember
correctly from my studies years ago, that was called "repeated
positive reinforcement."
Of course, nothing in the Bible ever asks you to "know" or "believe"
things by praying about them. Instead, the Bible says:
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work.
NKJV
"Knowing" is what SCRIPTURE is for, not prayer.
>
>> b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
>> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
>> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
>
>This is a hard question to answer. The most satisfactory response I've
>encountered is that we don't know what Joseph really meant with the word
>"translate". For instance, no ancient documents were consulted in the
>creation of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. It has been
>conceded that much of the Book of Mormon was dictated without looking at
>the characters on the golden plates.
If that were true, why would smith say he "translated" at all? Why
didn't he just call it another "revelation" from God?
The argument sounds a little like Clinton's "I did not have sex with
that woman. . ." or "what does IS mean?"
>
>> c. What "family" you hope to be with when you die? Yourself, your
>> spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
>> HOW do you think that could possibly work?
>
>It is my personal opinion that we will live with our spouse. We will be
>able to visit our children, parents, and other relations.
So far, that is the BEST explanation I have heard so far, and the ONLY
one that makes any sense at all!
>
>> d. Do you REALLY BELIEVE you are "Christians" in the generally
>> accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
>
>I know that many in the mainstream don't consider us Christian. I know
>most LdS feel offended at this exclusion, because Jesus is at the center
>of our teachings. Ultimately, what the Lord thinks will matter more than
>who you or I call "Christian".
The word "Christian" means literally a "follower of Christ" or a
"disciple of Christ." Lots of folks claim to be followers or
disciples of Christ who are not. Some are followers of a "different"
Christ. That is why we traditional Christians do not consider your
religion to be "Christian," as I am certain you already know.
>
>> Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
>> between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
>
>We believe we are a living Church, which means we reserve the right to
>change as our understanding deepens or we receive new revelation.
>
>Iosepa
We traditional Christians grow and change too, using automobiles,
televisions, and zippered pants, but we believe God set up His church
about 2,000 years ago and cannot contradict the things He gave us
then.
Good post.
Checker
dianaiad
che...@flipper.com wrote:
<snip to>
<snip>
> Of course, nothing in the Bible ever asks you to "know" or "believe"
> things by praying about them. Instead, the Bible says:
>
> 2 Tim 3:16-17
> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
> equipped for every good work.
> NKJV
>
> "Knowing" is what SCRIPTURE is for, not prayer.
And just how, (she asks sweetly) are we supposed to know that the bible
is an authoritative source for giving us information like the above?
<snip to end, hoping against all hope that this time someone GETS THE
POINT! ...there is, after all, a REASON why the most used example of
circular reasoning in fallacy lists is "God exists because the bible
says so, and the bible is true because God wrote it" )>
dianaiad
Give me one good reason why I should answer any question couched in
such insulting, and deceptive, terms? What makes you think that my own
personal beliefs aren't precisely what I told you to go look up?
If I didn't agree with the church teachings on something major, I
wouldn't be LDS. I'd go find the group that believes as I did.
Therefore, since I am LDS, it can be safely assumed that my beliefs and
those that the 'mormon church "officially" teach[es]' (sarcasm noted)
agree.
Diana
Eric
Wouldn't being a member of the church be a pretty clear indication that
we belive it's "official" teachings?
Eric
glea...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Unfortunatly it is true what is said
> "Our country is never so divided as it is on sunday"
> Any other day we would all be pretty much on the same side of things.
It is a sad thing when people do not live according to those teachings
which they profess to believe on Sunday. Such a phenomena is what I
would call somebody within the LDS faith a 'Sunday Saint'. The Sunday
Saint puts on the clothes, says the words, and perhaps even performs
the acts on Sunday, but then becomes what the world would have them
become the other six days of the week. I have little doubt that there
are Sunday Born-Again, Catholics, Baptists and so on for any other
faith. I think the only real difference between Sundays and any other
day of the week is that we become much more guarded about what we say
in regards to religious matters because of the stupidity that somebody
may be 'offended' by such expressions.
checker
I asked you to tell what YOU believe because many folks do believe
most of what their religion teaches, but many do not believe exactly
the same as their religion teaches.
I am not interested in being sent to a lot of links; I can go to those
places by myself. I am interested in what mormons REALLY believe, not
what their religion's "official stance" is.
And being interested in that does NOT make what I asked become
"insulting" OR "sarcastic." Are you ALWAYS so hyper-sensitive?
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
checker
wrote:
Not necessarily. Lots of folks attend churches that they "generally
agree with," but where there are teachings they do not agree with but
do not challenge. Mormons are likely no different.
Catholics do not all believe that their priests should not be allowed
to marry, that women should not be allowed to be priests. I would
venture to suggest that most American catholics who are of
child-bearing age eventually practice birth control by the pill and/or
condoms which their religion "officially" condemns.
So the quesion still stands as reasonable. What do mormons ACTUALLY
BELIEVE, and especially what do they ACTUALLY CONSIDER IMPORTANT
amongst the beliefs they hold?
In Christ Jesus,
Checker
checker
>
>che...@flipper.com wrote:
>
><snip to>
><snip>
>> Of course, nothing in the Bible ever asks you to "know" or "believe"
>> things by praying about them. Instead, the Bible says:
>>
>> 2 Tim 3:16-17
>> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
>> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
>> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
>> equipped for every good work.
>> NKJV
>>
>> "Knowing" is what SCRIPTURE is for, not prayer.
>
>And just how, (she asks sweetly) are we supposed to know that the bible
>is an authoritative source for giving us information like the above?
There is ample EVIDENCE for that. The Bible says that Faith
("knowing" in the scriptural sense) comes by hearing and hearing by
the Word of God.
It also says that Faith ("knowing" in the scriptural sense) is
SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE.
Biblical faith (even in the authenticity and veracity of the Bible
itself) is based upon SUBSTANCE AND EVIDENCE; Faith IS NEVER BLIND.
>
><snip to end, hoping against all hope that this time someone GETS THE
>POINT! ...there is, after all, a REASON why the most used example of
>circular reasoning in fallacy lists is "God exists because the bible
>says so, and the bible is true because God wrote it" )>
Except that those who believe that is "circular reasoning" do not
understand that the Bible is NOT a monolithic book, but is a
COLLECTION of writings from 39 or so DIFFERENT penmen, ranging from
shepherds to kings, from tax collectors to a doctor, and is therefore
a MULTIPLE SOURCE, NOT A SINGLE SOURCE such as "circular reasoning"
would require.
Ignorance is the cause of many such myths as the consideration that
using one book of the Bible to demonstrate the concepts in another
would be circular reasoning.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
dianaiad
Being interested in that makes you unique. Couching it in terms like
"how do you explain the fraudulent work..." and "How do you "know"
Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
emotional feeling)? ", with their question begging, exclusionary
language and poisoning of the well rhetoric, is insulting and
sarcastic.
If you want to, honestly, learn what my beliefs are, ask me in terms
that do not shout your own bias, already reached conclusions, and
obvious intent, which is to set me up for an argument.
I, quite often, go to believers of a different faith to ask them what
their beliefs are. People of those other faiths have had, quite
frequently, the same experiences we have, of people asking questions
who are not really interested in the answers, but are simply setting
them up for a bashing session. Sometimes it takes awhile to gain
trust....but I generally end up doing so, and I never abuse it. One of
the things I do NOT do is use words like 'fraudulent' in terms of texts
they accept as scriptural, nor do I calvalierly express contempt for
their spiritual experiences by restating them in slighting and
disdaining terms, as you have here.
In other words, supercillious and condescending language will not get
you sincere responses. The polite will refer you elsewhere. The pissed
off will tell you where to go.
Etgel
You Chec~ dude asked people what we believed.
Diannaiad answered in the most honest and concise form possible.
You are not happy, you are not satisfied with the message, you want to
roast the messanger.
I posted a direct answer to several of your questions.
I had the decency to answer several of your questions honestly just as
you wanted,
but you, not seeing me as points to score, did not have the decency to
even thank me for my time.
You never wanted truth, you want fresh virgin mormon BLOOD.
Etgel
dianaiad
che...@flipper.com wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2006 10:47:12 -0700, "dianaiad" <dian...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >che...@flipper.com wrote:
> >
> ><snip to>
> ><snip>
> >> Of course, nothing in the Bible ever asks you to "know" or "believe"
> >> things by praying about them. Instead, the Bible says:
> >>
> >> 2 Tim 3:16-17
> >> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> >> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> >> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
> >> equipped for every good work.
> >> NKJV
> >>
> >> "Knowing" is what SCRIPTURE is for, not prayer.
> >
> >And just how, (she asks sweetly) are we supposed to know that the bible
> >is an authoritative source for giving us information like the above?
>
> There is ample EVIDENCE for that.
where?
> The Bible says that Faith
> ("knowing" in the scriptural sense) comes by hearing and hearing by
> the Word of God.
Uh huh...and how is that manifested in the hearer? What experience does
the reader/listener have that gives him this conviction of truth?
the point is, before you can use the bible as an authoritative text,
you have to have faith in it AS an authoritative text. So, how are you
going to take that first step? How do you know that what the bible says
about how 'faith comes' is correct, if you don't know whether the bible
is a good source of truth?
Again, you aren't getting the point.
> It also says that Faith ("knowing" in the scriptural sense) is
> SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE.
>
> Biblical faith (even in the authenticity and veracity of the Bible
> itself) is based upon SUBSTANCE AND EVIDENCE; Faith IS NEVER BLIND.
But you are using the bible to prove that the bible is true. And you
don't even know what the problem is.
> ><snip to end, hoping against all hope that this time someone GETS THE
> >POINT! ...there is, after all, a REASON why the most used example of
> >circular reasoning in fallacy lists is "God exists because the bible
> >says so, and the bible is true because God wrote it" )>
>
> Except that those who believe that is "circular reasoning" do not
> understand that the Bible is NOT a monolithic book, but is a
> COLLECTION of writings from 39 or so DIFFERENT penmen, ranging from
> shepherds to kings, from tax collectors to a doctor, and is therefore
> a MULTIPLE SOURCE, NOT A SINGLE SOURCE such as "circular reasoning"
> would require.
And every single one of those multiple sources claim to be scripture.
Not books of history that may or may not have the facts straight, not
compilations of mythology, not bits of fiction, but scripture. The fact
that the bible is a collection of books claiming to be scripture
doesn't make an outside confirmation of that fact any less necessary.
They cannot testify of themselves. You HAVE to get God involved in any
confirmation of scripture. Otherwise, no matter how many texts there
are, they are simply another collection of mythologies mixed with
history.
>
> Ignorance is the cause of many such myths as the consideration that
> using one book of the Bible to demonstrate the concepts in another
> would be circular reasoning.
It is circular reasoning, because this isn't a case of using the text
of one book to illuminate the text of another. It is assuming that
these texts can be used this way because they are all scripture. First,
prove that they are scripture. THEN you can use them to illustrate and
illuminate each other. You keep skipping that step.
Or, more precisely, since you want to make fun of the fact that Mormons
did NOT skip this step, but have confirmed for themselves the
scriptural nature of the bible by going to their Father in Heaven about
it, and recieving that confirmation in something people like you like
to denigrate as 'heart burn" or "emotional feeling." It is not, you
know. It is a confirmation of the spirit, such as that the apostles had
when they saw Him after his death and resurrection.
The point is, Checker, that I do believe the bible is scripture. But I
also know WHY I believe it. And you, quite frankly, don't understand
why you do.
Just Wondering
I believe that a person who claims to be a Christian, but tries to
castigate members of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints as not
being Christians, is acting directly contrary to the teachings of Christ
and is himself really not a Christian regardless of what he claims.
truth_...@surfy.net
I agree, as being christian implies to me is "being a good hearted
people"
Forked tongue snakes annoy me as I seek truth.
Half truths are still lies.
Truth seeker
Eric
I First Wrote:
> >Wouldn't being a member of the church be a pretty clear indication that
> >we belive it's "official" teachings?
Checker then responded:
> Not necessarily. Lots of folks attend churches that they "generally
> agree with," but where there are teachings they do not agree with but
> do not challenge. Mormons are likely no different.
>
> Catholics do not all believe that their priests should not be allowed
> to marry, that women should not be allowed to be priests. I would
> venture to suggest that most American catholics who are of
> child-bearing age eventually practice birth control by the pill and/or
> condoms which their religion "officially" condemns.
>
> So the quesion still stands as reasonable. What do mormons ACTUALLY
> BELIEVE, and especially what do they ACTUALLY CONSIDER IMPORTANT
> amongst the beliefs they hold?
>
> In Christ Jesus,
> Checker
If you wish to know what I believe I will tell you. It will no doubt
be familiar to at least a few of the participants on this board.
I believe:
1. In God, the Eternal Father, in his son, Jesus Christ, and in the
Holy Ghost as three separate and distinct personages who are united in
purpose, characteristic and attribute of virtue.
2. That mankind will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam
or Eve's transgression in partaking of the fruit of knowledge of good
and evil.
3. That through the atonement and grace of Jesus Christ all mankind may
be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
4. That the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first,
faith in the lord, Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by
immersion for the remission of sins; and the laying on of hands for the
gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. That a man must be called by prophecy and by the laying on of hands
by those who are in authority, to preach the gospel and to administer
in the ordinances thereof.
6. In the same organization that existed in the primitive church namely
apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.
7. In the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings,
interpretations of tongues and so forth.
8, That the Bible is the word of God so far as it is has been
translated correctly (though I do not read it with the intent to seek
translational errors) and I also believe the Book of Mormon, the
Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price as well as the
words of living prophets to be the word of God.
9. All that God has revealed in times past, all that he does now reveal
today, and that he will yet reveal many great and important things
pertaining to his kingdom.
10. In the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the
Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the
American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth;
and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. That I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to
the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same
privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. And that I
also have a responsibility to make a knowledge of those things which we
consider to be sacred and true to those who will give ear to the
message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in a manner. And that
such can be done in a manner which is respectful of their agency to
choose to disbelieve what I might have to say.
12. In being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land in which I might
find myself.
13. In being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing
good to all men; indeed, we I might say that I do my best to follow the
admonition of Paul-I believe all things, I hope all things, I have
endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there
is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, I seek
after these things.
The above have been adapted from the Articles of Faith which were
originally written by Joseph Smith, Jr. in a letter to John Wentworth
who was the editor of the Chicago Democrat. They echo the confidence in
the integrity of the leaders of the church and the texts which have
been accepted as scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints both past and present.
glea...@hotmail.com
So Dianaiad,
according to the "rug rat" here
you have been selected to be the
embassador to the cannabal nations.
Gleann
dianaiad
Well, he might have a problem there. at least as to the 'fresh virgin'
part. As a fifty seven year old mother of five, I'm obviously neither.
;-)
checker
Am I mistaken or has the mormon church not fully acknowledged that the
thing Joseph Smith "translated" the book of Abraham from was only a
funeral papyrus and not what Smith said? Perhaps I was mistaken.
>and "How do you "know"
>Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>emotional feeling)? ", with their question begging, exclusionary
>language and poisoning of the well rhetoric, is insulting and
>sarcastic.
No "question begging," (where is the circular reasoning here?),
exclusionary language (not being interested in being sent to
"official" links that I could find easily on my own is a reasonable
position to take), "poisoning of the well rhetoric" (just WHAT
"poisoning of the well" OR rhetorical questions have I given?)??
Your hypersensitivity does NOT make my statements "insulting" OR
"sarcastic."
>
>If you want to, honestly, learn what my beliefs are, ask me in terms
>that do not shout your own bias, already reached conclusions, and
>obvious intent, which is to set me up for an argument.
I have done exactly that, and I have attempted to save you some effort
that would be wasted by telling you what I am NOT interested in (the
links or emotional feelings). You appear to be SEVERELY
over-sensitive.
>
>I, quite often, go to believers of a different faith to ask them what
>their beliefs are.
But of course, YOU are never "biased" in your asking? You don't know
already that you already have opposing beliefs to some of them? Do
you REALLY think you are "bias-free?"
>People of those other faiths have had, quite
>frequently, the same experiences we have, of people asking questions
>who are not really interested in the answers, but are simply setting
>them up for a bashing session.
And if that is so? What would Jesus do? Paul tells us:
1 Peter 3:15-17
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to
give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is
in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when
they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in
Christ may be ashamed. 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God,
to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
NKJV
Pretty clear to me. . .I am not to complain; I am just to give a
defense (an answer) and a REASON FOR THE HOPE THAT IS IN ME, with
meekness and fear.
THAT is what God tells us to do.
>Sometimes it takes awhile to gain
>trust....but I generally end up doing so, and I never abuse it.
Where does the Bible say that we should "trust" those who ask us why
we beleive what we do?
It doesn't, of course.
>One of
>the things I do NOT do is use words like 'fraudulent' in terms of texts
>they accept as scriptural, nor do I calvalierly express contempt for
>their spiritual experiences by restating them in slighting and
>disdaining terms, as you have here.
Jesus did. Paul did.
Matt 23:31-33
31 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons
of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of
your fathers' guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers ! How can you
escape the condemnation of hell
NKJV
Mark 13:22-23
22 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and
wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 But take heed;
see, I have told you all things beforehand.
NKJV
2 Cor 11:12-15
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the
opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just
as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false
apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of
Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an
angel of light.
NKJV
Jesus, Paul, and we the followers of Jesus pretty much call things as
they are. Being "politically correct" and pretending that not
offending is more important that truth is a recent phenomenon, not a
Christian trait.
>In other words, supercillious and condescending language will not get
>you sincere responses. The polite will refer you elsewhere. The pissed
>off will tell you where to go.
You are doing an awfully lot of complaining and not ANY telling us of
what you yourself believe. Why is that? Is it more important to you
that you not be offended?
How do you think Jesus or Paul would that to be?
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
checker
In all my postings in this ng, I have once have heard diannaiad
referred to as "fresh virgin mormon BLOOD" or anything resembling it.
Oh well. . .
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
checker
And why is that? Because we Christians do not consider mormons to be
"of our own kind?" The mormon doctrines appear to be extremely
"different" from anything ever given in the first century church by
Jesus or His Apostles or any of the writings of the first century
leaders. . .that makes the "different" religion something to be
examined and if it is false, shown to be false.
And that is frequently something we do.
So how would that be "unChristian?"
checker
Being Christian is "following the Christ" of the original Christian
church. Jesus said there would be:
Mark 13:22-23
22 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and
wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 But take heed;
see, I have told you all things beforehand.
NKJV
The Apostle Paul said,
2 Cor 11:12-15
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the
opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just
as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false
apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of
Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an
angel of light.
NKJV
When we see such things, what do YOU think we should do? Remain
silent and let our friends and neighbors be duped by the false
christs, false prophets, and false apostles?
I don't believe the REAL Jesus would want us to do that, do you?
checker
Nancy
You're the first one who laments that 'we' nomo's or exmo's have "No
Idea" what Mormons are all about and believe and constantly misrepresent
what you believe. So here is your chance to send the record straight,
and what do you do?
Post the church approved LDS website
which proves:
"When the Church speaks, the thinking has been done"
Etgel
I guess that neither you or diannaiad understand symbolism?
This fact places the two of you easily into your respective positions
in this matter.
In the context of the post "fresh virgin Mormon BLOOD" simply refers to
the innocent soul of someone who believes completely and without
reservation, a true TBM.
This blindness on your parts causes you to quote scripture entirely out
of context.
You wouldn't know Jesus in person, because you do not know him in
script.
Is that a Braille keyboard you use, or is your blindness more subtle?
You really should stick to the milk subjects like abortion or global
warming.
And most of all don't quit your day job.
Etgel
checker
wrote:
>che...@flipper.com wrote:
>I First Wrote:
>> >Wouldn't being a member of the church be a pretty clear indication that
>> >we belive it's "official" teachings?
>
>Checker then responded:
>
>> Not necessarily. Lots of folks attend churches that they "generally
>> agree with," but where there are teachings they do not agree with but
>> do not challenge. Mormons are likely no different.
>>
>> Catholics do not all believe that their priests should not be allowed
>> to marry, that women should not be allowed to be priests. I would
>> venture to suggest that most American catholics who are of
>> child-bearing age eventually practice birth control by the pill and/or
>> condoms which their religion "officially" condemns.
>>
>> So the quesion still stands as reasonable. What do mormons ACTUALLY
>> BELIEVE, and especially what do they ACTUALLY CONSIDER IMPORTANT
>> amongst the beliefs they hold?
>>
>> In Christ Jesus,
>> Checker
>
>
>If you wish to know what I believe I will tell you. It will no doubt
>be familiar to at least a few of the participants on this board.
>
>I believe:
>
>1. In God, the Eternal Father, in his son, Jesus Christ, and in the
>Holy Ghost as three separate and distinct personages who are united in
>purpose, characteristic and attribute of virtue.
Do you believe the three separate and distince personages are ONE God
or THREE Gods? That seems to be the major difference between
historical Christians and mormons. So that is an answer I would be
interested in hearing. From their writings (Abraham 3 and 4) the
"official" position seems to be that they believe in 3 separate Gods,
not the traditional "Trinitarian" concept.
It would mean that the difference would be there polytheism versus
monotheism of first century Christianity, a MAJOR difference in
concepts.
>2. That mankind will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam
>or Eve's transgression in partaking of the fruit of knowledge of good
>and evil.
Historical Christianity (the Bible) agrees with that. Some groups
that have wandered away (such as the catholics, orthodox and
anglicans) would disagree, but are not supported by Bible or first
century writings.
>3. That through the atonement and grace of Jesus Christ all mankind may
>be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
The Bible gives this "obedience" as merely receiving Jesus Christ by
FAITH. Faith is counted as righteousness, making us righteous in the
sight of God, the penalty for our sins having been paid for by Jesus
on the Cross.
>4. That the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first,
>faith in the lord, Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by
>immersion for the remission of sins; and the laying on of hands for the
>gift of the Holy Ghost.
And what relationship do these "first principles" have to a man's
being "saved" from the penalty of his sins, being made "right" with
God? Are you saying that if any of these things is missing, the
person will not be right with God?
>5. That a man must be called by prophecy and by the laying on of hands
>by those who are in authority, to preach the gospel and to administer
>in the ordinances thereof.
Who has the "authority" to speak for God and do things for Him. Do
you not believe ALL Christians do?
>6. In the same organization that existed in the primitive church namely
>apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.
Do your apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists etc. meet
the qualifications of the original church? How can your apostles meet
the qualification given in Acts 1 that they must have been there when
Jesus walked the earth? What about your offices of "seer" and
"revelator" and "Stake President" and "High Priest" that do NOT appear
in the first century church anywhere?
>7. In the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings,
>interpretations of tongues and so forth.
When was the last time YOU saw any of these gifts actually happen in
your congregation? Which ones were there? What happened?
>8, That the Bible is the word of God so far as it is has been
>translated correctly (though I do not read it with the intent to seek
>translational errors) and I also believe the Book of Mormon, the
>Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price as well as the
>words of living prophets to be the word of God.
If there ARE errors in translation that are not easily resolved by
reading multiple translations, then why has the LDS church neglected
putting out a "corrected" translation? What about the contradictions
between the books, how do you account for them?
>9. All that God has revealed in times past, all that he does now reveal
>today, and that he will yet reveal many great and important things
>pertaining to his kingdom.
What new "revelation" has your church had in the last 75 years? I
don't remember seeing any revelations. A DECLARATION that blacks may
now receive the priesthood, I think, but it was never called a
"revelation from God" I don't think. So where are these
"revelations," and what are they?
>10. In the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the
>Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the
>American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth;
>and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
Where do you see this kind of thing in the first century church at
all?
>11. That I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to
>the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same
>privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
That is the American way. It has nothing to do with Christianity
which has never denied anyone the priviledge or right to worship
whomever they wish however they wish as long as they don't infringe
upon others' rights to do the same. (No human sacrifices allowed, of
course. . . :-)
>And that I
>also have a responsibility to make a knowledge of those things which we
>consider to be sacred and true to those who will give ear to the
>message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in a manner. And that
>such can be done in a manner which is respectful of their agency to
>choose to disbelieve what I might have to say.
Historically, spreading the word has been called, "evangelism," and we
historical Christians do that all of the time too.
>12. In being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in
>obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land in which I might
>find myself.
>13. In being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing
>good to all men; indeed, we I might say that I do my best to follow the
>admonition of Paul-I believe all things, I hope all things, I have
>endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there
>is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, I seek
>after these things.
Good. You have given good answers.
>
>The above have been adapted from the Articles of Faith which were
>originally written by Joseph Smith, Jr. in a letter to John Wentworth
>who was the editor of the Chicago Democrat. They echo the confidence in
>the integrity of the leaders of the church and the texts which have
>been accepted as scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>Saints both past and present.
So now I am confused. Do YOU believe these things, or does HE? Or do
you both?
I will go with the idea that you posted this because YOU believe this
way, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify by answering my
additional questions. If you have any questions about Christian
Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Evangelical Frees, etc., please
feel free to ask.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
Don in Las Vegas
che...@flipper.com wrote:
> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>
> So here is your opportunity!!!
>
> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
> emotional feeling)?
> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
> spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
> HOW do you think that could possibly work?
> accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
>
> between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
>
> be misrepresented.
>
> We DO reserve the right to ask questions and provide counterpoints,
> however.
>
> in the Name of Jesus,
> Checker
Checker,
As having been a Temple Reccommend holder in the Mormon Church,
...they are nervous to respond as they are afraid of being drawn into
a conversation that will "show their slip", so to speak. They are
concerned about "Adam God" Doctrines, "Eternal Progression", the
several and conflicting versons of "The First Vision", The belief that
was commonly taught in the early days that said that some sins were so
blatant and wrong that you had to die yourself so your blood would
cover the sin as Jesus Christ blood would not and could not!! There
are is fear of discussing the changes in the Temple Ceremony How the
Temple Ceremony is so similiar to the Masons Rites that it is obvious
to the thinking person that it is not an acidental similarity...Joseph
Smith faked it by stealing it from the Masons. ...........
The concernes that they have are huge. Contrary to popular belief,
they DO NOT believe in Jesus Christ, period and end of statement. When
they say Jesus Christ they are not referring to the same thing you are.
It's a bit like someone sayig vegetables, they mean Cabbage, you are
thinking carrrots and there is no similarity past the word vegetable.
Mormons know that they are out of line with Christianity. We all
know why.
Don in Vegas....
John Manning
I was wrong about you, Etgel. You write good stuff when you write like this.
>
> Etgel
>
Etgel
John Manning wrote:
>
>
> I was wrong about you, Etgel. You write good stuff when you write like this.
>
But thanks anyway darling.
Etgel
John Manning
Why do you have a different email address?
> Etgel
>
John Manning
> placed on you
> you needen't be ashamed of what you write, but maybe someday of what
> you don't
> write.
>
> Parental unit "Truth seeker"
Sounds like a wise parental unit.
Eric
Now this is a question which could certainly invite quite a bashing
session, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are
asking to sincerely know my personal belief and I will give you every
opportunity to take it as you will.
My personal belief is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are
three separate and distinct individual persons that each embody the
Godly attributes. These attributes being embodied in the consistency
of their character and that they are all one in mercy and graciousness,
slow to anger, that they do not change in these attributes at any time
or for any reason, that they each possess a nature of truthfulness and
an inability to lie, that they are no respecter of persons but that
they will abundantly bless all those who seek to live lives of
righteousness, and six that they are love.
I know that such a belief in three individuals each possessing these
divine attributes is a hard pill to swallow for many when the consider
the biblical texts; however, in my own considerations I do not see any
contradictions. To me, there is but one God to whom I owe my complete
and utter devotion and that is the Father. The Father sent his son,
Jesus Christ to provide an intercession for mankind so that we might be
saved from the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve and the natural
consequence of sin. Both the Father and the Son possess perfected,
immortal bodies of flesh and bone. The Holy Ghost is a personage of
spirit whose mission is to convey and confirm truth to the hearts of
mankind. They each are not only one in their possession of divine
attributes, but are also one in their cause to provide the means
necessary for men to gain immortality (salvation from the effects of
the fall of Adam and eve which are physical death) and eternal life
(which provides salvation from the effects of sin and to become
perfected through the atonement of Christ and thereby be able to dwell
eternally in the presence of the Father and his son, Jesus Christ).
> That seems to be the major difference between
> historical Christians and mormons. So that is an answer I would be
> interested in hearing. From their writings (Abraham 3 and 4) the
> "official" position seems to be that they believe in 3 separate Gods,
> not the traditional "Trinitarian" concept.
This is indeed the case and while the general Christian population sees
such a claim as blasphemy, it comes to be reasonably reconciled within
my own mind between the biblical texts and those which I consider to be
additional scriptural text i.e. The Book of Mormon, etc.
> It would mean that the difference would be there polytheism versus
> monotheism of first century Christianity, a MAJOR difference in
> concepts.
Indeed it is. Polytheism seems to be a more prevalent belief system
than monotheism; however, the belief in a plurality of gods who preside
over their own kingdoms and dominions does not diminish the glory of
God the Father in the mind of this Latter-day Saint as it generally
seems to do among those of mainstream Christianity.
> >2. That mankind will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam
> >or Eve's transgression in partaking of the fruit of knowledge of good
> >and evil.
>
> Historical Christianity (the Bible) agrees with that. Some groups
> that have wandered away (such as the catholics, orthodox and
> anglicans) would disagree, but are not supported by Bible or first
> century writings.
I am not versed enough in early Christian writings apart from the Bible
which might show that there is agreement with such a declaration of
mankind being punished for their own sins, but I would invite you to
consider the following texts which do seem to be in harmony with such a
belief:
Exodus. 32: 33.
33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me,
him will I blot out of my book.
Deut. 24: 16.
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither
shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be
put to death for his own sin.
Ezek. 18: 20 (1-20).
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
> >3. That through the atonement and grace of Jesus Christ all mankind may
> >be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
>
> The Bible gives this "obedience" as merely receiving Jesus Christ by
> FAITH. Faith is counted as righteousness, making us righteous in the
> sight of God, the penalty for our sins having been paid for by Jesus
> on the Cross.
Ah, I do not deny that faith in Jesus Christ is indeed necessary for
salvation; however where I will split with you and the rest of
mainstream Christianity is that faith is only the first step along a
path. The next few steps were addressed in the fourth article.
> >4. That the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first,
> >faith in the lord, Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by
> >immersion for the remission of sins; and the laying on of hands for the
> >gift of the Holy Ghost.
>
> And what relationship do these "first principles" have to a man's
> being "saved" from the penalty of his sins, being made "right" with
> God? Are you saying that if any of these things is missing, the
> person will not be right with God?
Indeed, I am. It is my belief that it is absolutely essential to our
salvation that we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and mediator before
the throne of the Father. As we come to understand our own sinful
nature and the effect of these natures as being a barrier between
ourselves and God we come to realize that we cannot possibly hope to be
reconciled before the presence of God in which no unclean thing can
dwell. So we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and the fact that
through him we might be cleansed from our sinful nature. This process
of cleansing is called repentance. Repentance is the abandonment of
our desires for and commission of sin and the cleansing which is made
possible through the grace and power of Jesus Christ. Once we learn to
utilize this process of repentance we show our desire to follow Christ
by entering into the waters of baptism, just as Christ did so that he
might fulfill all righteousness. In my mind if Christ, in his
perfection, thought it necessary to follow in the ordinance of baptism,
then we, who are imperfect, also are then in much greater need of such
an ordinance so that we too might be able to fulfill all righteousness.
The laying on of hands to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by those
in authority is also necessary as this grants us the constant
companionship of one member of the Godhead who acts as a spokesman for
the other two and also acts as a comforter, a guide, a revelator and
ultimately as a testator of the reality of Jesus Christ. As we will
never achieve a sinless state while in this life, we must continue to
make a daily effort to develop our faith in Jesus Christ and to purify
our lives from sin.
To remove any of these elements is to nullify the effects of any of the
others. Repentance without faith in Christ is dead. To enter into
baptism without an understanding of continual repentance quickly
becomes a moot ordinance as we often do not go long in life without
committing sin in one form or another and so forth.
> >5. That a man must be called by prophecy and by the laying on of hands
> >by those who are in authority, to preach the gospel and to administer
> >in the ordinances thereof.
>
> Who has the "authority" to speak for God and do things for Him. Do
> you not believe ALL Christians do?
No, I do not believe that anybody can take upon themselves authority to
act or speak in the name of God. However, in this belief I do not mean
in any way to diminish the sincerity in which others will share their
witness of Christ. Among his other attributes, I also believe that
ours is a God of order. Thus, the reason that I believe that a man must
be called by *prophecy* and by the *laying on of hands by those who are
in authority.* This authority might also be referred to as the
priesthood. Now how to have this authority restored would seem
paradoxical considering the church's belief that between the mortal
ministry of Christ and the apostles and the time of the restoration
that the authority to speak and act in the name of God had been taken
from the earth. How then was it established if there was nobody to
bestow it? It is my belief that while Christ was on the earth, he
conferred this authority to each of the apostles with Peter, James and
John as the primary leaders at that point in time. In process of time
each of the apostles was killed and since there was no continuation of
the bestowal of authority it ceased to remain on the earth. The time
of the restoration is maintained by LdS faith to be a time of constant
angelic administration. Among others, I believe that certain
priesthood keys were bestowed to Joseph Smith under the hands of John,
the Baptist. I also believe that other keys were restored under the
hands of Peter, James and John who had received such keys directly
under the hand of Jesus Christ, himself. This authority is believed to
have been passed down through the generations from Joseph Smith and
remain in force among the Latter-day Saints today.
> >6. In the same organization that existed in the primitive church namely
> >apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.
>
> Do your apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists etc. meet
> the qualifications of the original church? How can your apostles meet
> the qualification given in Acts 1 that they must have been there when
> Jesus walked the earth?
This is quite easily answered if one accepts the angelic administration
of Peter, James, John the Apostle, and John the Baptist to Joseph
Smith. These men were the very same who were chosen by Christ and so
had authority to pass it on to others as was manifested at the very end
of the first chapter of Acts when Mattias was chosen to take the place
of Judas.
> What about your offices of "seer" and "revelator"
What else is a prophet if he is not a "seer" of the things of God and a
"revelator" of the will of God to mankind? There were many revelations
which were made known to the apostles such as the revelation by way of
vision of the scroll that was lowered which gave instruction for the
gospel to be taken to the gentile nations.
> and "Stake President"
This term may not have been specifically listed as this name as the
primitive church in it's initial stages, but I am confident that there
may have been those who were called to preside (which has the same root
as president) over a number of the bishops, who were to preside over
the local congregations.
> and "High Priest" that do NOT appear
> in the first century church anywhere?
Ah, but it did appear, at least in the King James Version of the Bible
in Hebrews chapters 5, 8, and 9 which indicates Christ himself as a
high priest. The NIV version, though in slightly different language,
seems to say much the same thing.
> >7. In the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings,
> >interpretations of tongues and so forth.
>
> When was the last time YOU saw any of these gifts actually happen in
> your congregation? Which ones were there? What happened?
I will share one experience in which I believe that the power of God
was made manifest in the healing of another. While I was in Boy Scouts
(which in Utah, usually has its troops organized in much the same
manner as the various wards/congregations) and we had gone into the
canyon for a camp-out. Being teenage boys we took great delight in
pushing over dead trees as we found them. In the process of doing so a
branch with the diameter of about half an inch fell into the eye of one
of our number. The wound was bleeding quite profusely and was not a
pretty sight by any stretch of the imagination. Our troop leader, who
was also one of our priest quorum advisors laid his hands upon the head
of this boy and gave him a blessing that his vision would not suffer
any permanent damage. While, it was not an immediate healing, the
blessing that the eye would heal and that there would not be any loss
of visual acuity was fulfilled.
In my own administration to others I have found that I have had things
revealed to me in regards to the personal circumstances of others that
had not been previously divulged to me by the person to whom I was
administering. The missionary program of the church is one in which
the gift of tongues is constantly made manifest. I know of no other
program that will teach a person completely enough in a language such
as Mandarin Chinese to communicate as does the missionary program.
> >8, That the Bible is the word of God so far as it is has been
> >translated correctly (though I do not read it with the intent to seek
> >translational errors) and I also believe the Book of Mormon, the
> >Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price as well as the
> >words of living prophets to be the word of God.
>
> If there ARE errors in translation that are not easily resolved by
> reading multiple translations, then why has the LDS church neglected
> putting out a "corrected" translation?
Now, this is one question to which I have no answer. The LdS edition
of the King James Bible does include footnotes of the Joseph Smith
translation of the Bible, but these are only selected parts and are not
a complete retranslation as far as I understand them to be.
> What about the contradictions
> between the books, how do you account for them?
When you say 'books' I presume that you mean between the Bible and the
Book of Mormon, etc. My personal study of both texts has not shown any
contradictions of great enough import as to destroy my confidence in
one or the other. I also know that such contradictions are often due
to the misperception of the texts by those outside of the church. If
you care to specify any such contradictions which you know of I would
be happy to show you how I would reconcile them.
> >9. All that God has revealed in times past, all that he does now reveal
> >today, and that he will yet reveal many great and important things
> >pertaining to his kingdom.
>
> What new "revelation" has your church had in the last 75 years? I
> don't remember seeing any revelations. A DECLARATION that blacks may
> now receive the priesthood, I think, but it was never called a
> "revelation from God" I don't think. So where are these
> "revelations," and what are they?
Let me first of all clarify the introduction of what is known among
church members as The Manifesto. Here I provide the introduction:
"To Whom It May Concern:
"On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was
presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First
Presidency of the Church:
"In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a
*revelation* had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball
extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of
the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference
that after he had received this *revelation*, which came to him after
extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple,
he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It
was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who
unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other
General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously (emphasis
added)."
Now while there have been few additional such declarations made, there
have been at least two which were approved by the First Presidency and
Quorum of Twelve Apostles. They are "The Family: A Proclamation to the
World" which was given in 1995 and "The Living Christ: The Testimony of
the Apostles" which was given in 2000. These are two documents that I
believe may eventually become canonized most likely as additions to the
Doctrine and Covenants. Aside from such official declarations, I am of
the opinion that the addresses which are given every six months in the
General Conferences of the church may be considered revelation as to
those matters to which we should pay particular attention. These
addresses take into consideration such fundamental topics such as faith
and repentance to more time specific topics such as pornography,
homosexuality and even counsel as to the number of piercings that one
should have.
> >10. In the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the
> >Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the
> >American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth;
> >and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
>
> Where do you see this kind of thing in the first century church at
> all?
I see it most greatly as it pertains to the work of proclaiming the
gospel to all the people of the earth. Being a party to the covenant
of Israel was something that was both bestowed by lineage, but also by
way of covenant. Those who accept Christ and enter into the ordinance
of baptism become party to the covenant of Abraham who was the
progenitor of Israel.
> >11. That I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to
> >the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same
> >privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
>
> That is the American way. It has nothing to do with Christianity
> which has never denied anyone the priviledge or right to worship
> whomever they wish however they wish as long as they don't infringe
> upon others' rights to do the same. (No human sacrifices allowed, of
> course. . . :-)
One principle which I consider to be of paramount importance is that of
agency. This agency is something that I believe has been given to us
by God to choose the way in which we will live our lives. This agency
may be used for us to become closer to God, but also gives us the
ability to choose to abandon anything that we perceive to be of God.
Every man and woman is naturally endowed with this ability to choose.
It is my personal belief that the composition of the United States
Constitution was greatly influenced by the hand of God.
> >And that I
> >also have a responsibility to make a knowledge of those things which we
> >consider to be sacred and true to those who will give ear to the
> >message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in a manner. And that
> >such can be done in a manner which is respectful of their agency to
> >choose to disbelieve what I might have to say.
>
> Historically, spreading the word has been called, "evangelism," and we
> historical Christians do that all of the time too.
Indeed. It wasn't uncommon when I was serving my mission in particular
for my companion and me to run into another set or group of people who
were also going about in the hopes that they might share their message
with others. Some of these meetings were pleasant, others were not,
but such proselyting is certainly not something that is unique to the
LdS faith and is something that was constituted among the apostles
appointed by Christ.
> >12. In being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in
> >obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land in which I might
> >find myself.
> >13. In being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing
> >good to all men; indeed, we I might say that I do my best to follow the
> >admonition of Paul-I believe all things, I hope all things, I have
> >endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there
> >is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, I seek
> >after these things.
>
> Good. You have given good answers.
> >
> >The above have been adapted from the Articles of Faith which were
> >originally written by Joseph Smith, Jr. in a letter to John Wentworth
> >who was the editor of the Chicago Democrat. They echo the confidence in
> >the integrity of the leaders of the church and the texts which have
> >been accepted as scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> >Saints both past and present.
>
> So now I am confused. Do YOU believe these things, or does HE? Or do
> you both?
I apologize for the confusion. These articles were originally given by
Joseph Smith, but I do accept them in my own personal belief system,
though this may be considered only a thumbnail sketch of all the points
of doctrine in which I place my faith.
> I will go with the idea that you posted this because YOU believe this
> way, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify by answering my
> additional questions. If you have any questions about Christian
> Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Evangelical Frees, etc., please
> feel free to ask.
You know, it was interesting thing that I observed, again more
particularly when I was serving a mission for the church. It's far
easier to find people of other faiths outside of Utah than within, but
that is beside the point. While I was serving I would often ask people
about their beliefs when I found that they had no interest in hearing
about ours. I was amazed at how infrequently people were willing to
talk about it. I've come to the conclusion that it was most likely
because it may have been somewhat intimidating to have two young men in
white shirts and ties asking you about your beliefs, or they might have
perceived it as some kind of sneaky effort to share something with them
that they didn't have any interest in hearing. There were times when I
had a great amount of interest in going and participating in a bible
study group or visiting one or two of the Born Again congregations that
we knew of in the areas in which I found myself, but my companions
never wanted to go.
I will address the remainder of your questions in another post.
checker
Oh I underwstand the concept. It is the APPLICATION I find humorous.
"innocent soul?" I doubt it.
>
>This blindness on your parts causes you to quote scripture entirely out
>of context.
>You wouldn't know Jesus in person, because you do not know him in
>script.
Do you make this stuff up as you go, or is it just that when folks
disagree with you, you use these two claims as your "pat answer-all?"
>
>Is that a Braille keyboard you use, or is your blindness more subtle?
>You really should stick to the milk subjects like abortion or global
>warming.
>And most of all don't quit your day job.
>
In other words you cannot support EITHER mormon doctrines OR
Christianity and have nothing to offer but sarcasm.
Go figure.
checker
wrote:
I'm not so sure that most mormons are even aware of these teachings,
let alone worry about them. I would suspect that the "average" mormon
is in the dark about these doctrines and do NOT believe them. That is
why I am asking the question.
> The concernes that they have are huge. Contrary to popular belief,
>they DO NOT believe in Jesus Christ, period and end of statement. When
>they say Jesus Christ they are not referring to the same thing you are.
> It's a bit like someone sayig vegetables, they mean Cabbage, you are
>thinking carrrots and there is no similarity past the word vegetable.
But do you really believe the "average" mormon even sees the
differences? I suspect they don't, so I am asking the above question
to see.
> Mormons know that they are out of line with Christianity. We all
>know why.
>
I'm not certain that most mormons do know that. I suspect that most
think they ARE Christians (they seem to be being taught that they are
now). So I asked the question.
Now if I can get straight answers. . .
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
Eric
che...@flipper.com wrote:
> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
If you want to look at one of the greatest misrepresentors of the LDS
faith, you only need to pay attention to Nancy's drive-by posting to
know that she's only scouring the internet in an effort to cause panic
and chaos, but drives off in a cloud of dust when it comes to a
particularly in depth discussion of any given topic. She is not alone
in her efforts by any means.
That being said, before I delve into answering your questions, I have
one for you. From what source have you gained a knowledge of LDS
theology?
> So here is your opportunity!!!
>
> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
> emotional feeling)?
As I understand it, the mainstream Christian movement is highly averse
to putting any trust in one's feelings. However, in Galatians 5 the
fruits of the Spirit are listed as nothing but feelings. Jesus Christ
appeared to two of the apostles following his crucifixion and one said
to the other, "Did not our hearts burn within us?" In my mind this is
another feeling produced by the teachings of Christ, though at the time
the two apostles did not recognize him. If the fruits of the spirit
are feelings, and the very teaching of Christ caused a feeling, then I
would wonder why the mainstream Christians are so set against putting
any faith in feelings unless such feelings confirm a truth which they
wish to deny.
I have had such feelings within soul which I can only understand to be
a confirmation of the divinely sanctioned mission and calling of Joseph
Smith.
Another scriptural reference states that those who are sent of God may
be discerned by making an evaluation of their 'fruits.' The Book of
Mormon is such a fruit which I have read and found to be in accordance
with the teachings of the Bible. They stand together as witnesses from
two continents as witnesses of the mission and divinity of Jesus
Christ. Another means by which one may assess a prophets validity is
by means of the fulfillment of prophecy. It is my belief that Joseph
made prophecies which have been fulfilled such as his name being had
both for good and evil among all people, nations, kindreds and tongues.
He prophesied that the church would fill the earth and today we are a
global church and are able to be found in every country which allows us
to be there. These are a few among many.
> b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with any such claims of a
fraudulent source being used to establish the fallacy of the Book of
Abraham to give a response to this question. I do still believe that
the book is divinely inspired and is of great scriptural value.
> c. What "family" you hope to be with when you die? Yourself, your
> spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
> HOW do you think that could possibly work?
The family that I hope to be with when I die, at least immediately
following my death are all of those who might have gone before me,
whether they be my parents, siblings, grandparents, great grandparents
(at least the ones that I knew) as well as my spouse; however, in the
more eternal sense it is my belief that the greatest amount of time
will be spent with my eternal companion and the offspring that we
create throughout the eternities, though there might be an occasional
family reunion or visiting of those who I knew in this life.
> d. Do you REALLY BELIEVE you are "Christians" in the generally
> accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
Now this seems like something of a baited question, but I'll answer it
as though it were not. I do believe that we are "Christians" in the
sense that we believe in Jesus Christ and that we accept him as the
only means by which we might hope to receive our eternal salvation. On
the other hand I know that there are aspects of my belief in Christ
which does not synchronize with those of the mainstream. So the only
answer that I can give in good conscience is yes and no. Yes in the
first sense that I mentioned, but no in the sense that we do not share
our understanding of exactly who Christ is with the Christian
mainstream.
> Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
> between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
I think I've at least outlined my personal beliefs, both those which
harmonize as well as those which are in contrast to the fundamental
Etgel
Very well put Eric
Even though our beliefs differ markedly in areas, It is great to hear
such well thought out conviction.
Etgel
Eric
Thank you, Etgel. I'll admit that I haven't quite figured you out, but
there should be ample time to get a better feel for your beliefs and
opinions as time passes.
checker
>Well Checker if all Mormons are guilty, then why ask such questions?
>I believe that Dianaiad is as innocent as it is possible for any human
>to be.
Assuming that I do not understand symbolism does not make Dianaiad
"innocent," nor all mormons guilty.
You may believe anything you choose to believe. Your sarcasm makes no
case for you at all.
>You on the other hand are hideing everything.
>Checker why not be honest,
>Why not peel off the wool...
So far you have provided no evidence that there is any "wool" to be
peeled. . . All you have shown is that you have sarcasm and no facts.
>> >
>> >This blindness on your parts causes you to quote scripture entirely out
>> >of context.
>> >You wouldn't know Jesus in person, because you do not know him in
>> >script.
>>
>> Do you make this stuff up as you go, or is it just that when folks
>> disagree with you, you use these two claims as your "pat answer-all?"
>
>I am just still abashed that having answered that I believe that Joseph
>Smith Is a prophet
>and why, you do not have the ability to respond. Either you agree or
>you don't.
Hmm. Let's see now. . .the fact is that I DON'T agree that joe smith
was a prophet of God (I am not a mormon, after all). So your sarcasm
forces you to somehown believe that I " quote scripture entirely out
of context" and that I " wouldn't know Jesus in person, because you do
not know him in script?"
No etgel, my disagreement with your claim that smith was a prophet
does NOT lead to those conclusions. Only your mindless sarcasm does
that.
>I was under the impression that you opened this thread to have a
>discussion.
I did.
>You have not discussed in my case. Why... are you afraid.
Discussion requires TWO sides. I have expressed my reasons for not
believing smith was a prophet, and you pretend I "have not discussed
in your case." How silly.
When you jump to conclusions that because I don't agree with you that
I quote scripture out of context and do not know Jesus, I correct you.
. .THAT IS discussion of your case.
No fear required or present. . .EVER.
>All you can do is shoot down those who believe and do not know why...
>is that it?
No, that is more of your sarcasm, nothing more.
>I believe, and know why I believe, does that scare you?
I have no doubt you do believe and I have no doubt you have your
reasons. I also know that the things you base your believing on are
false and can and frequently do demonstrate that fact. What is there
that should "scare" me? LOL!
>Didn't you think it was possible?
>
I never doubted it for a minute!
>> >
>> >Is that a Braille keyboard you use, or is your blindness more subtle?
>> >You really should stick to the milk subjects like abortion or global
>> >warming.
>> >And most of all don't quit your day job.
>> >
>> In other words you cannot support EITHER mormon doctrines OR
>> Christianity and have nothing to offer but sarcasm.
>
>I have stated that I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
And I am willing to show reasons your belief is based upon fiction.
Are YOU afraid to consider looking at those reasons?
>Further i'm sure we are both are aware that Joseph Smith considered
>Jesus Christ
>his savior. So how is it you can say I cannot support Either Mormon
>doctrines or Christianity, when the prior evidence says I support BOTH.
We are both aware that joseph smith considered HIS VERSION of Jesus
Christ his savior. HIS "christ" was a different christ from the
Christ of the Bible, even though he claimed they were the same.
The REAL Jesus said:
Mark 13:21-23
21 "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look,
He is there!' do not believe it. 22 For false christs and false
prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible,
even the elect. 23 But take heed; see, I have told you all things
beforehand.
NKJV
>It is clowns like you I do not support.
Nobody asked you to support me. If it offends you, I will take off
the red nose, red wig, and floppy shoes and put on a grey suit with a
black nameplate on the pocket, a white shirt and a red tie. And the
TRUTH will still remain the TRUTH, regardless of what I wear.
>
>Any sarcasm I exhibit here is purely a response to your "Holier than
>thou" browbeating that is most un-christian.
Hmm. Your sarcasm is better than my Christian attitude? I don't
think so. "Holier than thou?" Not true at all. . .I am merely a
sinner saved by the Grace of God, nothing more.
>>
>> Go figure.
>>
>> in the Name of Jesus,
>> Checker
>
>Do you have any Idea how many people have been killed in that name.
Not at all. Nor can I tell you how many people mormons have killed
(such as the mountain meadows massacre). So what? Lots of people
claim to be Christians who are not. Lots of people use Christianity
as their excuse for doing bad things.
How many little girls have been raped/married to polygamists following
smith?
We COULD get into a lot of nasty battles like that, but they don't
reflect what your group OR my group believes, so perhaps it would be
better to just forget it.
>How many beliefs surpressed.
>I find it very offensive that you would think that such blasphemy would
>increse
>the merit of your stature one mite.
I find it very interesting that you think that "suppressing beliefs"
is "blasphemy!" I LIVED in a mostly-mormon community for quite a
while and KNOW how ostracised non-mormons were in that community, how
"suppressed" we all were, and how badly many were treated. Don't
play so "holier than thou" with me. . .it doesn't work! I have lived
amongst your kind. . .
in Christ Jesus, (the REAL One)
Checker
checker
wrote:
>
>che...@flipper.com wrote:
>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>
>If you want to look at one of the greatest misrepresentors of the LDS
>faith, you only need to pay attention to Nancy's drive-by posting to
>know that she's only scouring the internet in an effort to cause panic
>and chaos, but drives off in a cloud of dust when it comes to a
>particularly in depth discussion of any given topic. She is not alone
>in her efforts by any means.
I would not presume to speak for or against Nancy in any way. I speak
only for myself.
>
>That being said, before I delve into answering your questions, I have
>one for you. From what source have you gained a knowledge of LDS
>theology?
Fair question! I became a Christian 32+ years ago in an area that was
mostly populated by mormons. All my neighbors except one household
were mormons, the people I worked with were mormons, and most of my
friends were mormons, so I was immediatly praised with such things as
"That's great, why don't you go ALL the way and become a Mormon?!" I
was given books of mormon, d&cs, pgps, etc in various combinations and
the missionaries came to my house.
I read the bom, the pgp, and the d&c completely through, praying about
each, with no purpose other than to please God and serve Him in any
way He desired. Because I had no family ties to any particular
religion ((I was raised catholic, but my mother was not-practicing and
would never have objected to anything I did in that regard), I was
completely free to worship any way God led.
That being said, I had also felt the leading of God for many years to
become a Christian. As a result I had studied my Bible for several
years (a dozen or more) before becoming a Christian, and I knew the
text of the Bible.
So when I read the mormon books and prayed about them, asking God to
show if they were true or not, the Holy Spirit showed me contradiction
after contradiction between smith's books and smith's books, and
between his books and the Bible. Somewhere in there I met a member of
the rlds church (I don't remember who; it was too long ago) who gave
me copies of the first printings of smith's books, and I read them
too. Same results, but with the added realization that there were
DIFFERENCES between the original printings and the current printings
that were significant too.
Since then I have had and still have many mormon friends, have a
library that includes most of the modern mormon books such as "Mormon
Doctrine" by Bruce McConkie, "The Great Apostasy" by Talmage, the
Journal of Discourses, and others. I have read much of what I have,
but not nearly all (has ANYONE read all of the JofD?).
>
>> So here is your opportunity!!!
>>
>> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
>> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>> emotional feeling)?
>
>As I understand it, the mainstream Christian movement is highly averse
>to putting any trust in one's feelings.
Somewhat, but not highly adverse. You and I both know that chemical
body reactions to childbirth, sugar, fear, anger, etc. can all cloud
the judgement and should not be relied upon to MAKE sound judgements
on.
> However, in Galatians 5 the
>fruits of the Spirit are listed as nothing but feelings.
They are more than feelings; they are continuous states of mind.
You may be at peace for a moment, but the peace spoken of there lasts
longer than the moment. For my wife and me it has lasted 32+ years so
far. Same with our joy, our longsuffering, and all of the rest.
A "deep burning in the bosom" is a momentary thing.
The Fruit of the Spriti is not.
>Jesus Christ
>appeared to two of the apostles following his crucifixion and one said
>to the other, "Did not our hearts burn within us?" In my mind this is
>another feeling produced by the teachings of Christ, though at the time
>the two apostles did not recognize him.
Luke 24:30-32
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread,
and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out
of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us,
while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the
scriptures?
KJV
Their hearts burned within them (they were excited), but it does not
say that it was that "burning" that told them He was Jesus. It was
not until he broke and blessed the bread and gave it to them that they
recognized them.
The "burning" here was NOT a "test of truth" or "proof of truth" as is
claimed by the "burning in the bosom" of the mormons I have ever met.
> If the fruits of the spirit
>are feelings, and the very teaching of Christ caused a feeling, then I
>would wonder why the mainstream Christians are so set against putting
>any faith in feelings unless such feelings confirm a truth which they
>wish to deny.
The Bible NEVER says to base our beliefs of what is True or not on the
basis of feelings. Our judgements are to be based on SCRIPTURE (that
is what SCRIPTURE is for, according to 2 Timothy 3:16).
That does NOT MEAN that we Christians are against HAVING feelings. We
have love, and we FEEL love. We have compassion and we FEEL
compassion. We do not "decide" what is worthy of either on the basis
of the feeling however, we make those decisions on the basis of
SCRIPTURE, as the Bible teaches us to do.
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work.
NKJV
There is NO place in the Bible that says feelings are for deciding
what is true or false.
>
>I have had such feelings within soul which I can only understand to be
>a confirmation of the divinely sanctioned mission and calling of Joseph
>Smith.
That is fine, and I have had the same feelings that I can only
understand to be the confirmation of the fact that Joseph Smith was a
false prophet.
So it behooves BOTH of us to do the following:
1 Thess 5:19-22
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
NKJV
And HOW do we test? BY SCRIPTURE.
We KNOW the Bible is true. I believe it. I think YOU believe it.
Smith said HE believed it.
The teachings and prophesies in question are the ones brough by smith,
so the proper test is to hold them up to the BIBLE and see if they are
true.
That is what the Bereans did with Paul, and they were praise for it.
>Another scriptural reference states that those who are sent of God may
>be discerned by making an evaluation of their 'fruits.' The Book of
>Mormon is such a fruit which I have read and found to be in accordance
>with the teachings of the Bible.
I too have read it, and what I found was completely the opposite of
what you found, so the proper thing is to COMPARE THE TEACHINGS, and
if the bom falls short, then REJECT IT, if it does not, then ACCEPT
IT.
On that basis, I and many other Christians have REJECTED IT, a Godly
thing to do.
>They stand together as witnesses from
>two continents as witnesses of the mission and divinity of Jesus
>Christ.
They CLAIM to do so, but upon closer examination, they do not do so.
>Another means by which one may assess a prophets validity is
>by means of the fulfillment of prophecy. It is my belief that Joseph
>made prophecies which have been fulfilled such as his name being had
>both for good and evil among all people, nations, kindreds and tongues.
According to the Bible, if a prophet gives even ONE false prophesy, HE
is not a prophet of God. Smith gave many. Does your religon now own
the temple in Independence, Missouri? Didn't smith "prophesy" that it
would and would ALWAYS hold it? If you look closely, you will find
MANY such false prophesies by smith. If SOME come true and SOME fail,
then how is he any different from any of the other "prophets" such as
nostradamus?
> He prophesied that the church would fill the earth and today we are a
>global church and are able to be found in every country which allows us
>to be there. These are a few among many.
But if he is wrong on even ONE, then he is not a prophet of God,
according to the Bible. And I beleive the Bible.
>
>> b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
>> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
>> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
>
>Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with any such claims of a
>fraudulent source being used to establish the fallacy of the Book of
>Abraham to give a response to this question. I do still believe that
>the book is divinely inspired and is of great scriptural value.
That is an area you REALLY need to look into. It does not make sense
if smith lied about what the papyrus said that his resultant "text"
should be believed to be authentic. If he lied about the source, then
the resultant "translation" cannot possibly be true. He might as well
have "translated" a comic book if the source has nothing to do with
the result.
>
>> c. What "family" you hope to be with when you die? Yourself, your
>> spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
>> HOW do you think that could possibly work?
>
>The family that I hope to be with when I die, at least immediately
>following my death are all of those who might have gone before me,
>whether they be my parents, siblings, grandparents, great grandparents
>(at least the ones that I knew) as well as my spouse; however, in the
>more eternal sense it is my belief that the greatest amount of time
>will be spent with my eternal companion and the offspring that we
>create throughout the eternities, though there might be an occasional
>family reunion or visiting of those who I knew in this life.
>
>> d. Do you REALLY BELIEVE you are "Christians" in the generally
>> accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
>
>Now this seems like something of a baited question, but I'll answer it
>as though it were not.
I phrased the question that way so that you would know I am not
looking for the "mormon answer" of "oh yes, we are Christians; we
follow Jesus," but I am looking for YOUR beliefs in the light of the
fact that most historical Christians would NOT believe you were of our
group; that there ARE significant differences.
> I do believe that we are "Christians" in the
>sense that we believe in Jesus Christ and that we accept him as the
>only means by which we might hope to receive our eternal salvation. On
>the other hand I know that there are aspects of my belief in Christ
>which does not synchronize with those of the mainstream. So the only
>answer that I can give in good conscience is yes and no. Yes in the
>first sense that I mentioned, but no in the sense that we do not share
>our understanding of exactly who Christ is with the Christian
>mainstream.
And that is a good and honest answer. I certainly have no
difficulties with it.
>
>> Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
>> between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
>
>I think I've at least outlined my personal beliefs, both those which
>harmonize as well as those which are in contrast to the fundamental
>Christians.
I think you have done a good job and I thank you for it. I hope you
are not offended by the reasons I have given for disagreeing with you,
and I hope you will examine them carefully to see if they are valid.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
glea...@hotmail.com
On Oct 21, 7:27 pm, "Etgel" <e...@pcisys.com> wrote:
> chec...@flipper.com wrote:
> > On 21 Oct 2006 03:23:00 -0700, "Etgel" <e...@pcisys.com> wrote:
>
> > >chec...@flipper.com wrote:
> > "innocent soul?" I doubt it.Well Checker if all Mormons are guilty, then why ask such questions?
> I believe that Dianaiad is as innocent as it is possible for any human
> to be.
> You on the other hand are hideing everything.
> Checker why not be honest,
> Why not peel off the wool...
>
>
>
> > >This blindness on your parts causes you to quote scripture entirely out
> > >of context.
> > >You wouldn't know Jesus in person, because you do not know him in
> > >script.
>
> > Do you make this stuff up as you go, or is it just that when folks
> > disagree with you, you use these two claims as your "pat answer-all?"I am just still abashed that having answered that I believe that Joseph
> Smith Is a prophet
> and why, you do not have the ability to respond. Either you agree or
> you don't.
> I was under the impression that you opened this thread to have a
> discussion.
> You have not discussed in my case. Why... are you afraid.
> All you can do is shoot down those who believe and do not know why...
> is that it?
> I believe, and know why I believe, does that scare you?
> Didn't you think it was possible?
>
>
>
> > >Is that a Braille keyboard you use, or is your blindness more subtle?
> > >You really should stick to the milk subjects like abortion or global
> > >warming.
> > >And most of all don't quit your day job.
>
> > In other words you cannot support EITHER mormon doctrines OR
> > Christianity and have nothing to offer but sarcasm.I have stated that I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
> Further i'm sure we are both are aware that Joseph Smith considered
> Jesus Christ
> his savior. So how is it you can say I cannot support Either Mormon
> doctrines or Christianity, when the prior evidence says I support BOTH.
> It is clowns like you I do not support.
>
> Any sarcasm I exhibit here is purely a response to your "Holier than
> thou"
> browbeating that is most un-christian.
>
>
>
> > Go figure.
>
> > in the Name of Jesus,
> > CheckerDo you have any Idea how many people have been killed in that name.
> How many beliefs surpressed.
> I find it very offensive that you would think that such blasphemy would
> increse
> the merit of your stature one mite.
> Etgel
Etgel,
Stop poking the monkeys with sticks through the bars.
It is not lady like, regardless of the imbalance of intelligence.
Gleann
Don in Las Vegas
Iosepa Hawaii Loa wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:01:42 -0600, checker wrote:
>
> > Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> > we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> > religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
> >
>
> I have a degree in Computer Science, and my dad has a PhD in Biology and
> related fields. I do not believe I am one of the stereotypical "Morbots"
> or "sheeple". I do not believe that "most correct book" means it has to
> be error free, nor do I believe the phrase "as far as it is translated
> correctly" nullifies the usefulness of the Bible.
>
> > Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
> > a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
> > emotional feeling)?
>
> never got a satisfactory answer when applying Moroni's challenge. It
> "seemed" true, but I didn't get that burning in the bosom people always
> talk about. My testimony was that I *believe* instead of I *know*.
>
> That was fine growing up, but I wasn't going to put my life on hold for
> two years to preach something I didn't _know_ for myself. Every night in
> my personal prayers I asked for an answer one way or the other. Finally
> after a month, a voice entered my head and told me that I've always known
> it to be true. That was good enough for me to change *believe* to *know*
> in my testimony, and that testimony served me well on my mission.
>
> > b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
> > in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
> > that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
>
> encountered is that we don't know what Joseph really meant with the word
> "translate".
You should have already understood this word "Translate". Translation
means taken from one language to another, and Joseph Smith did not get
one single paragraph, harase, word or idea correct in his inspired
translation. If he did it by the gift and power of God, it would have
been right. Did he lie, or was he uninspired and a show off trying to
look good. No matter what, the Prophet Joseph Smith got it one hundred
percent wrong.
For instance, no ancient documents were consulted in the
> creation of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. It has been
> conceded that much of the Book of Mormon was dictated without looking at
> the characters on the golden plates.
>
> > c. What "family" you hope to be with when you die? Yourself, your
> > spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
> > HOW do you think that could possibly work?
>
> It is my personal opinion that we will live with our spouse. We will be
> able to visit our children, parents, and other relations.
>
> > d. Do you REALLY BELIEVE you are "Christians" in the generally
> > accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
>
> I know that many in the mainstream don't consider us Christian. I know
> most LdS feel offended at this exclusion, because Jesus is at the center
> of our teachings. Ultimately, what the Lord thinks will matter more than
> who you or I call "Christian".
You do not believe in Jesus Christ. You believe in a person who was
once a man that became Diety that you call Jesus Christ. The Christ
that the rest of the Christian world believes in, the Christ from His
own written word is not the one you believe in. You do not believe in
this generally worshiped Christ, but one that Joseph Smith gave you
(the same Joseph Smith that got the Book of Abraham 100% wrong in
translation, mind you) Since the Christ you believe in is not the
Christ that the one and only Christ teaches of, and was...you cannot
be Christians. You are a Church that untill the reorganisation of the
Missionary Discussions (I still have my old rainbow discussions)
emphasised Joseph Smith. Remember, we all learned "There was in the
place that he lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion,
indeed the ...." I still remember them verbatim.
The Christ you believe in is a man made Christ that was a man, came
back after his death as a God, then....
Sorry, by the most liberal understanding, Mormons are not Christians.
Even the Christ that you believe in, if he really were the center of
your faith, would not be Christ, but a reincarnated person, ...an
"angel of light!!"
>
> > Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
> > between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
>
> We believe we are a living Church, which means we reserve the right to
> change as our understanding deepens or we receive new revelation.
Translation: When we get busted and are shownthat our beliefs make no
sense we reserve the right to fake a prayer and come up with a
contorted story that fits the moment.
>
> Iosepa
> --
> Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono.
> :The life (sovereignty) of the land is perpetuated in (by) righteousness.
dianaiad
Don in Las Vegas wrote:
<snip to here>
>
> You do not believe in Jesus Christ. You believe in a person who was
> once a man that became Diety that you call Jesus Christ.
So do you. That is, if you are a mainstream Christian (or even slightly
out of the mainstream Christian) you do. Was Jesus Christ not born,
physically, of a woman? Did He not grow as men do, live as men do, DIE
as men do? Was He not, then, a man? If you don't believe that He was,
then you are further out of the mainstream than we can possibly be
accused of. I don't know any Christian teaching that contends that
Jesus was not, ever, a man.
> The Christ
> that the rest of the Christian world believes in, the Christ from His
> own written word is not the one you believe in. You do not believe in
> this generally worshiped Christ, but one that Joseph Smith gave you
> (the same Joseph Smith that got the Book of Abraham 100% wrong in
> translation, mind you)
> Since the Christ you believe in is not the
> Christ that the one and only Christ teaches of, and was...you cannot
> be Christians.
Of course we can. We may not agree with you ABOUT Him, but since we do
believe in Him, however wrongheaded we may be, we are still Christians
by the very fact that we do believe in Him. Of course, your definition
of "Christian" is obviously "he who believes the correct thing about
Jesus Christ." Wouldn't you say that this was a fair assessment? After
all, you are certain that you are correct in your beliefs, and that we
are not, and that only those who believe as you do can be called
"Christian." The problem with that, of course, is that if this is so,
we are the Christians and you---well, you aren't.
Isn't it a good thing that "Christian" is not defined as "he who
believes the correct thing about Christ?" After all, when one examines
that definition closely, one would realize that nobody could be a
Christian under that particular definition.
Of course, you COULD be defining "Christian" as "he who is Christ's" or
"he who is saved." the problem with that definition is, of course, that
you have no business deciding who that is. It is hubris. It is really
dangerous. You know what Christ said about unrighteous judgment...there
is no penalty for treating other people as if they were His, if they
are not. There IS a problem if you treat others as if they were not, if
they are. Shoot, there's a problem with treating other people
disdainfully anyway; for persecuting them, for attacking them, for
doing things to and around them that might drive them away from Him.
Insulting them would be, I think, one of those things.
Ultimately, the salvation of any one of us is between us and Christ.
Nobody else gets a vote in the matter, not me, not you. Tell me, if you
arrive in Heaven and find a bunch of Mormons standing with you, being
welcomed by Christ as His, will you then decide that the One welcoming
us is the wrong one, and turn your back upon Him?
Sadly enough, I think I know the answer to that.
> You are a Church that untill the reorganisation of the
> Missionary Discussions (I still have my old rainbow discussions)
> emphasised Joseph Smith. Remember, we all learned "There was in the
> place that he lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion,
> indeed the ...." I still remember them verbatim.
> The Christ you believe in is a man made Christ that was a man, came
> back after his death as a God, then....
> Sorry, by the most liberal understanding, Mormons are not Christians.
> Even the Christ that you believe in, if he really were the center of
> your faith, would not be Christ, but a reincarnated person, ...an
> "angel of light!!"
And you have no clue what our beliefs are, if that is what you think.
If you ever were a missionary, you know better than this...You DO
remember our beliefs regarding Who Jehovah is/was, yes? (wondering
whether you, if you ever were LDS, were hit on the back of the head
with a board and have suffered amnesia..)
> >
> > > Or any other thing you think is IMPORTANT concerning the differences
> > > between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
> >
> > We believe we are a living Church, which means we reserve the right to
> > change as our understanding deepens or we receive new revelation.
>
> Translation: When we get busted and are shownthat our beliefs make no
> sense we reserve the right to fake a prayer and come up with a
> contorted story that fits the moment.
I believe that this reaction is very similar to the ones shown by those
who threw the early Christians to wolves, didn't believe the apostles,
crucified Christ, etc. POV varies. Yours is, of course, in error.
However, it may comfort you to know that since the definition of
Christian, as given in every single English dictionary I know about
(and I know most of them) includes you, as a believer in the teachings
of Jesus Christ (even if you have some problems figuring out what those
actually ARE..) then I cannot deny your status as Christian---even
though, using the definition (which is found NOWHERE in the English
language) that you use, I would have to tell you that you are not.
As to whether you are His, well...that's between you and Him. Aren't
you glad I don't get a vote in that?
Have a nice day.
Iosepa Hawaii Loa
>>7. In the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings,
>>interpretations of tongues and so forth.
>
> When was the last time YOU saw any of these gifts actually happen in
> your congregation? Which ones were there? What happened?
The gifts of the Spirit manifest themselves as needed. For example,
because most of our congregations are filled with people who speak the
same language, the gift of tongues isn't necessary. No, I'm not talking
about making the sounds of some language which doesn't exist on earth
(such as what happens in certain charismatic churches), but the gift of
tongues where a person opens his mouth and an understood (by the
recipient) language comes out *OR* where the recipient miraculously
understands the speaker's words.
Almost all LdS missionaries who had to preach in a foreign language has at
least one story about the gift of tongues. As I've posted, I knew nothing
of Portuguese when I was called to serve in Brasil. I arrived in the
country on a Wednesday and was asked to give my first talk that Sunday.
Somehow I spoke for over 20 minutes and the congregation understood me.
Another manifestation, though slightly different, happened a couple weeks
later when I was asked to give a blessing of comfort. Words flowed from
my mouth which were beyond my vocabulary.
Revelation / vision. After I had sent in my mission papers, but before I
received my call, I had an unusual dream. With perfect clarity I was
shown a young lad playing soccer in front of a specific house, in a
certain neighborhood of a city. That young man delivered a message in a
weird language - even in my dream I couldn't understand the words. On my
mission, I found myself transferred to a city which matched my dream, so I
tracked down that neighborhood and found the right street. There was the
young man kicking around a ball in front of the right house. He readily
accepted our message and was baptized. He's still active, having served
his own mission and filling many callings in his branch.
Healings. When I was 8 or 9, my sister fell down a hole and landed on her
back on a cement slab (it was a sun-roof deally for an underground
facility). She fell a good 12 feet. My dad rushed down there (using the
stairs of course) and gave her a blessing. When we arrived at the
hospital, nothing was found wrong with her, and after a couple ofdays of
precautionary rest my sister was running around again.
Iosepa Hawaii Loa
> On 21 Oct 2006 19:02:55 -0700, "Eric" <ECrypto...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>before I delve into answering your questions, I have one for you. From
>>what source have you gained a knowledge of LDS theology?
>
> Since then I have had and still have many mormon friends, have a library
> that includes most of the modern mormon books such as "Mormon Doctrine"
> by Bruce McConkie, "The Great Apostasy" by Talmage, the Journal of
> Discourses, and others. I have read much of what I have, but not nearly
> all (has ANYONE read all of the JofD?).
You do realize how the Church views _Mormon Doctrine_ by Bruce R.
McConkie, right? The first edition was riddled with so much false
doctrine he had to recant it, or at least publish a second edition with
MAJOR changes, before he would be sustained a General Authority. Neither
edition is endorsed by the Church (the Brethren even requested that he
not publish the first edition).
_Jesus the Christ_ and _the Great Apostasy_ by Talmage are excellent
books. Elder Talmage (he was one of the Twelve when he wrote them) was
given a special room in the Salt Lake Temple when he wrote _Jesus the
Christ_. Because of misuse, _the Great Apostasy_ is only printed in
English. It seems too many missionaries were bashing more than preaching.
> The Bible NEVER says to base our beliefs of what is True or not on the
> basis of feelings. Our judgements are to be based on SCRIPTURE (that is
> what SCRIPTURE is for, according to 2 Timothy 3:16).
That's the circular reasoning mentioned in another post. While I agree we
need to compare new material to known and proven Scripture, how does one
know the Bible itself is true? What is the litmus?
Jesus said that if we do what he taught, we can know whether the doctrine
is from the man Jesus (ie uninspired) or if the doctrine was from God.
Unfortunately for us, Jesus didn't explain *how* to recognize the answer.
checker
<ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:24:18 -0600, checker wrote:
>
>> On 21 Oct 2006 19:02:55 -0700, "Eric" <ECrypto...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>before I delve into answering your questions, I have one for you. From
>>>what source have you gained a knowledge of LDS theology?
>>
>> Since then I have had and still have many mormon friends, have a library
>> that includes most of the modern mormon books such as "Mormon Doctrine"
>> by Bruce McConkie, "The Great Apostasy" by Talmage, the Journal of
>> Discourses, and others. I have read much of what I have, but not nearly
>> all (has ANYONE read all of the JofD?).
>
>You do realize how the Church views _Mormon Doctrine_ by Bruce R.
>McConkie, right? The first edition was riddled with so much false
>doctrine he had to recant it, or at least publish a second edition with
>MAJOR changes, before he would be sustained a General Authority. Neither
>edition is endorsed by the Church (the Brethren even requested that he
>not publish the first edition).
Yet I am in mormon homes perhaps 10 times per week. Have you ANY idea
of how many of those homes have "Mormon Doctrine" by McConkie on their
shelves, to give them answers concerning what their church teaches?
Probably close to half!
>
>_Jesus the Christ_ and _the Great Apostasy_ by Talmage are excellent
>books. Elder Talmage (he was one of the Twelve when he wrote them) was
>given a special room in the Salt Lake Temple when he wrote _Jesus the
>Christ_. Because of misuse, _the Great Apostasy_ is only printed in
>English. It seems too many missionaries were bashing more than preaching.
>
>> The Bible NEVER says to base our beliefs of what is True or not on the
>> basis of feelings. Our judgements are to be based on SCRIPTURE (that is
>> what SCRIPTURE is for, according to 2 Timothy 3:16).
>
>That's the circular reasoning mentioned in another post.
As I demonstrated in several other posts where this specious claim was
made, it is NOT circular reasoning to use the Bible (a COLLECTION of
many DIFFERENT sources) as an authority, made up of some 39 different
writers over a known 1800+ years, from all sorts of varied backgrounds
(cup-bearer, shepherd, fisherman, physician, tax collector, king,
etc.). It would only be circular reasoning if the writings were all
authored by one person, as the bom, pgp, and most of the d&c are
(joseph smith).
>While I agree we
>need to compare new material to known and proven Scripture, how does one
>know the Bible itself is true? What is the litmus?
A huge pile of EVIDENCE. The places existed. The events happened.
The people existed. Multiple accounts from multiple writers.
Multiple documents, coins, and other artifacts exist from the time,
places, and people.
Very UNLIKE joseph smiths inventions where NO places have been found
to exist, NO events have been found to have happened, and NO suck
peoples ever existed, and ONLY ONE WRITER ever wrote of them (joseph
smith himself). And NO documents, coins, and other artifacts exist
from the time, places, or people.
I can SEE why mormons do not have much faith in the authenticity of
their scriptures apart from emotional responses. They have NO
substance and NO evidence that any of it existed at all.
>
>Jesus said that if we do what he taught, we can know whether the doctrine
>is from the man Jesus (ie uninspired) or if the doctrine was from God.
>Unfortunately for us, Jesus didn't explain *how* to recognize the answer.
>
Wrong on at least two fronts:
1. Your claim denies the Holy Spirit living in and leading every
individual Christian over the 2,000 years or so of Christ's church,
and His ability to do as Jesus said, lead us, teach us, and convict us
when we stray.
2. Your claim denies the authenticity and TRUTH of 2 Timothy 3:16.
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works.
KJV
The purpose of SCRIPTURE is to do the above. Not feelings, burnings
in bosoms, or peepstones.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
checker
<ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:45:10 -0600, checker wrote:
>
>>>7. In the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings,
>>>interpretations of tongues and so forth.
>>
>> When was the last time YOU saw any of these gifts actually happen in
>> your congregation? Which ones were there? What happened?
>
>The gifts of the Spirit manifest themselves as needed. For example,
>because most of our congregations are filled with people who speak the
>same language, the gift of tongues isn't necessary. No, I'm not talking
>about making the sounds of some language which doesn't exist on earth
>(such as what happens in certain charismatic churches), but the gift of
>tongues where a person opens his mouth and an understood (by the
>recipient) language comes out *OR* where the recipient miraculously
>understands the speaker's words.
Actually, that is a pretty good answer. So far I have never met an
American mormon who ever experienced tongues or any of these other
gifts personally in an American concgregaton where it could be checked
however. It seems pretty CONVENIENT that all of your members and
visitors speak English! ;-)
>
>Almost all LdS missionaries who had to preach in a foreign language has at
>least one story about the gift of tongues. As I've posted, I knew nothing
>of Portuguese when I was called to serve in Brasil. I arrived in the
>country on a Wednesday and was asked to give my first talk that Sunday.
>Somehow I spoke for over 20 minutes and the congregation understood me.
How do you know? Did you speak English? or Portuguese? Hadn't you
gone to some language school before getting there? If you spoke
"baby" Portuguese, don't you think it would be REASONABLE that they
would understand you? If you spoke English, are you not aware that
American English is fast becoming the International language of the
western world? Did they speak English?
Before I believed Biblical tongues OR interpretation were involved, I
would have to see a LOT more facts.
>
>Another manifestation, though slightly different, happened a couple weeks
>later when I was asked to give a blessing of comfort. Words flowed from
>my mouth which were beyond my vocabulary.
>
>Revelation / vision. After I had sent in my mission papers, but before I
>received my call, I had an unusual dream. With perfect clarity I was
>shown a young lad playing soccer in front of a specific house, in a
>certain neighborhood of a city. That young man delivered a message in a
>weird language - even in my dream I couldn't understand the words. On my
>mission, I found myself transferred to a city which matched my dream, so I
>tracked down that neighborhood and found the right street. There was the
>young man kicking around a ball in front of the right house. He readily
>accepted our message and was baptized. He's still active, having served
>his own mission and filling many callings in his branch.
>
>Healings. When I was 8 or 9, my sister fell down a hole and landed on her
>back on a cement slab (it was a sun-roof deally for an underground
>facility). She fell a good 12 feet. My dad rushed down there (using the
>stairs of course) and gave her a blessing. When we arrived at the
>hospital, nothing was found wrong with her, and after a couple ofdays of
>precautionary rest my sister was running around again.
>
I have to tell you I am not much impressed with anecdotal "evidence."
I have heard some of the strangest, wildest, and beyond a doubt, the
most DISHONEST things claimed by fringe pentecostals, people who had
no form of Christianity at all, and pseudo-scientists of the same
kinds of stuff.
And I was not convinced that their stuff was the Biblical phenomenon
either.
Sorry.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
Don in Las Vegas
No rudeness intended, but it is a question that should be able to be
addressed here in this ng. No one needs pimple faced kids biking to
their house to answer what can be done here much easier. I can accept
an "I don't know", but I cannot accept a hand off for lack of a correct
and better answer..
> Go to <http://www.lds.org> and look.
>
> Or ask the missionaries to come and talk to you. Maybe they'll convert you and you'll become a GOD!
Eric
che...@flipper.com wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2006 19:02:55 -0700, "Eric" <ECrypto...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >che...@flipper.com wrote:
> >> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> >> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> >> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
> >
> >If you want to look at one of the greatest misrepresentors of the LDS
> >faith, you only need to pay attention to Nancy's drive-by posting to
> >know that she's only scouring the internet in an effort to cause panic
> >and chaos, but drives off in a cloud of dust when it comes to a
> >particularly in depth discussion of any given topic. She is not alone
> >in her efforts by any means.
>
> I would not presume to speak for or against Nancy in any way. I speak
> only for myself.
Fair enough.
> >
> >That being said, before I delve into answering your questions, I have
> >one for you. From what source have you gained a knowledge of LDS
> >theology?
>
> Fair question! I became a Christian 32+ years ago in an area that was
> mostly populated by mormons. All my neighbors except one household
> were mormons, the people I worked with were mormons, and most of my
> friends were mormons, so I was immediatly praised with such things as
> "That's great, why don't you go ALL the way and become a Mormon?!" I
> was given books of mormon, d&cs, pgps, etc in various combinations and
> the missionaries came to my house.
>
> I read the bom, the pgp, and the d&c completely through, praying about
> each, with no purpose other than to please God and serve Him in any
> way He desired. Because I had no family ties to any particular
> religion ((I was raised catholic, but my mother was not-practicing and
> would never have objected to anything I did in that regard), I was
> completely free to worship any way God led.
It sounds like you've done a lot more than most people are willing to
do. At least you went strait to the source of the doctrine rather than
reading somebody else's interpretation or representation of the church.
> That being said, I had also felt the leading of God for many years to
> become a Christian. As a result I had studied my Bible for several
> years (a dozen or more) before becoming a Christian, and I knew the
> text of the Bible.
I think that it is a basic human drive to search for something more
than the day to day existence of eating, sleeping, working and playing.
People find different ways and means to satisfy this search. I do not
pretend to understand all things, but I do know that just as you found
God through Christianity, I found God through the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why some get led down one path and others
down another I do not know, but I am confident that the purposes of God
are accomplished either way, whatever those purposes may be.
> So when I read the mormon books and prayed about them, asking God to
> show if they were true or not, the Holy Spirit showed me contradiction
> after contradiction between smith's books and smith's books, and
> between his books and the Bible. Somewhere in there I met a member of
> the rlds church (I don't remember who; it was too long ago) who gave
> me copies of the first printings of smith's books, and I read them
> too. Same results, but with the added realization that there were
> DIFFERENCES between the original printings and the current printings
> that were significant too.
>
> Since then I have had and still have many mormon friends, have a
> library that includes most of the modern mormon books such as "Mormon
> Doctrine" by Bruce McConkie, "The Great Apostasy" by Talmage, the
> Journal of Discourses, and others. I have read much of what I have,
> but not nearly all (has ANYONE read all of the JofD?).
Thank you for this explanation. It is always beneficial to know the
background of where others are coming from.
> >> So here is your opportunity!!!
> >>
> >> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
> >> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
> >> emotional feeling)?
> >
> >As I understand it, the mainstream Christian movement is highly averse
> >to putting any trust in one's feelings.
>
> Somewhat, but not highly adverse. You and I both know that chemical
> body reactions to childbirth, sugar, fear, anger, etc. can all cloud
> the judgement and should not be relied upon to MAKE sound judgements
> on.
Hmm, I've never experience childbirth so I wouldn't know what effect
that would have on one's judgment, though having witnessed it in one
form or another, this is something for which I am grateful, though I
admire the courage of women to go through such pain in order to bring
children into the world. Sugar may cause hyperactivity and/or some
degree of silliness in some, but generally sugar seems to be somewhat
beneficial to the operation of the body. Now, I will readily admit
that fear and anger are emotions which have the potential to cause a
lack of clear judgment. However, it seems to me that such are quite
different than feelings of love, joy, peace and the other fruits of the
Spirit of God.
To what end are such things given if not to edify and lead one to the
truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ? It is during the peace of the
early morning when there is little else going on around me that I feel
that I do my best thinking. The joy of service to others and knowing
that I am living a life in harmony with the commandments of God causes
a state of mind when the problems of life do not seem so overwhelming.
Patience and long-suffering are two virtues with which I sometimes
struggle, but I notice that when I do exercise them that there is an
acuity to my focus which does not come at any other time.
> > However, in Galatians 5 the
> >fruits of the Spirit are listed as nothing but feelings.
>
> They are more than feelings; they are continuous states of mind.
>
> You may be at peace for a moment, but the peace spoken of there lasts
> longer than the moment. For my wife and me it has lasted 32+ years so
> far. Same with our joy, our longsuffering, and all of the rest.
Suppose that I experience a feeling of peace and/or joy while reading
and meditating upon the words of the Bible. This would be the Spirit
of God. I would hope that there would be no argument there. But then
suppose that I experience the exact same feelings, or state of mind
while reading and meditating upon the words of the Book of Mormon? Do
I discount such feelings because they have not been experienced by
every other person in the world? Or do I put my faith that both contain
the gospel of Jesus Christ and both fall into the category of scripture
that has been explained in Timothy?
> A "deep burning in the bosom" is a momentary thing.
>
> The Fruit of the Spriti is not.
>
> >Jesus Christ
> >appeared to two of the apostles following his crucifixion and one said
> >to the other, "Did not our hearts burn within us?" In my mind this is
> >another feeling produced by the teachings of Christ, though at the time
> >the two apostles did not recognize him.
>
> Luke 24:30-32
>
> 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread,
> and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
> 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out
> of their sight.
> 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us,
> while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the
> scriptures?
> KJV
Interesting. If memory serves it has been said by other participants
in this group that such a burning has not been associated with the
study or participation in seeking the truth of the scriptures. Yet in
the reference cited above it states that this burning took place while
Christ was sharing with the apostles the words of the scriptures. What
was the purpose of this burning, if not to confirm the words of Christ
to the hearts of those who heard?
> Their hearts burned within them (they were excited), but it does not
> say that it was that "burning" that told them He was Jesus. It was
> not until he broke and blessed the bread and gave it to them that they
> recognized them.
It seems that the apostles failed to identify the feeling that they
were experiencing until after they realized that it was Christ who
spoke to them. It is almost as if they didn't connect that the feeling
of burning within to the words of Christ until after the feeling had
passed. Though they may not have recognized him until after the fact,
they did realize that it was the words of Christ which generated the
feeling.
> The "burning" here was NOT a "test of truth" or "proof of truth" as is
> claimed by the "burning in the bosom" of the mormons I have ever met.
Was it mere excitement then? I think it was something much more than
that, for there are many things which could cause excitement which have
nothing to do with the words of Christ.
> > If the fruits of the spirit
> >are feelings, and the very teaching of Christ caused a feeling, then I
> >would wonder why the mainstream Christians are so set against putting
> >any faith in feelings unless such feelings confirm a truth which they
> >wish to deny.
>
> The Bible NEVER says to base our beliefs of what is True or not on the
> basis of feelings. Our judgements are to be based on SCRIPTURE (that
> is what SCRIPTURE is for, according to 2 Timothy 3:16).
How then are we to know what is scripture? I read your response to
Iosepa and if I understand correctly you are stating that the Bible is
a compilation of the writings of many different men over the course of
1600+ years (forgive me if I am off on the number) and these facts
establish the validity of the claims of the Bible to be the word of
God.
So if the test is true for one, let us look at the claims of the Book
of Mormon. According to LDS belief, it was not written by the hand of
Joseph Smith. Rather it was the writing of several different men which
spanned a time period from the destruction of the tower of Babel until
roughly the fifth century AD.
In both cases we have a claimed compilation of the writings of several
different authors covering a great expanse of time. Both make the
claim, how do we know if one is more right than the other?
> That does NOT MEAN that we Christians are against HAVING feelings. We
> have love, and we FEEL love. We have compassion and we FEEL
> compassion. We do not "decide" what is worthy of either on the basis
> of the feeling however, we make those decisions on the basis of
> SCRIPTURE, as the Bible teaches us to do.
>
> 2 Tim 3:16-17
> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
> equipped for every good work.
> NKJV
So then the only question in my mind would be whether God only gave
inspiration to the prophets of the Bible, or whether there were
prophets on the American Continent who also received such inspiration
and whose compiled works now are found within the Book of Mormon. If
he did, then the Christian world is ignoring a very important portion
of God's revealed word.
> There is NO place in the Bible that says feelings are for deciding
> what is true or false.
But the Bible does say in numerous places, particularly in the New
Testament to ask, seek, and knock with a promise that if we do so that
we shall receive, find, and have things opened to us. It also contains
a promise in James 1:5-6 that those who ask in faith may receive wisdom
from God. Does this wisdom come by hearing an actual voice, seeing a
vision, or might it come by the fruits of the Spirit? John 14:26
states that the Holy Ghost shall be sent to us to teach us all things,
and to bring all things to our rememberance.
> >I have had such feelings within soul which I can only understand to be
> >a confirmation of the divinely sanctioned mission and calling of Joseph
> >Smith.
>
> That is fine, and I have had the same feelings that I can only
> understand to be the confirmation of the fact that Joseph Smith was a
> false prophet.
If the Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead and cannot lie, then it
would only seem logical to think that one of us has been deceived.
> So it behooves BOTH of us to do the following:
>
> 1 Thess 5:19-22
> 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
> things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
> NKJV
>
> And HOW do we test? BY SCRIPTURE.
Again, there also comes the question as to how we determine what is
scripture.
> We KNOW the Bible is true. I believe it. I think YOU believe it.
> Smith said HE believed it.
At least we have that in common. I have one question here. Does the
Bible contain the entirety of the revealed word of God to mankind from
Adam to the present? I do not possess a vast knowledge of the origins
of the Bible, but from what I understand what we now have as the Bible
is a result of a rigorous selection process of a great myriad of
purported religious texts. I don't know exactly what conditions were
to be satisfied in order to produce an agreement as to what should be
included in the bible or to not be included. I do allow the
possibility that there could have been texts which were indeed
authentically given from the mouth of God which we do not currently
have in the Bible. I also allow the possibility that the Bible may
have had text admitted which is not authentically from the mouth of God
which is a great reason that I believe in the stipulation that "we
believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated (and
I would also add compiled) correctly.
I do not discount the bible because of its possible frailties; rather I
embrace it because of the truth which I believe with all of my heart
that it contains. I use it as a means to gain a greater understanding
of who Christ was and what I can do in my life to more closely follow
him. The frailty is in man, not in God.
> The teachings and prophesies in question are the ones brough by smith,
> so the proper test is to hold them up to the BIBLE and see if they are
> true.
>
> That is what the Bereans did with Paul, and they were praise for it.
>
> >Another scriptural reference states that those who are sent of God may
> >be discerned by making an evaluation of their 'fruits.' The Book of
> >Mormon is such a fruit which I have read and found to be in accordance
> >with the teachings of the Bible.
>
> I too have read it, and what I found was completely the opposite of
> what you found, so the proper thing is to COMPARE THE TEACHINGS, and
> if the bom falls short, then REJECT IT, if it does not, then ACCEPT
> IT.
So one of us has found the teachings to be in harmony and the other has
found the teachings to be in disagreement or contradiction. Which of
us is correct is a debate which has already spanned almost two
centuries.
> On that basis, I and many other Christians have REJECTED IT, a Godly
> thing to do.
Now there is a point of divergence for sure, at least so far as you
state that it is Godly to reject the Book of Mormon. Though we
disagree on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church,
I can respect your reasons for rejecting it, for you have taken the
time to put it to the test. Such a test is something that many
Christians have not actually taken the time to do, but rather dismiss
it wholesale because of the opinions of those to whom they are close,
the opinions of their ministers or simply because they have no desire
to put forth the effort to seek for themselves.
> >They stand together as witnesses from
> >two continents as witnesses of the mission and divinity of Jesus
> >Christ.
>
> They CLAIM to do so, but upon closer examination, they do not do so.
I would like to think that I have made a pretty good examination of
both, especially prior to and during my mission. I would hate to think
that I had devoted such a great amount of time and energy into
misleading good and honest people.
> >Another means by which one may assess a prophets validity is
> >by means of the fulfillment of prophecy. It is my belief that Joseph
> >made prophecies which have been fulfilled such as his name being had
> >both for good and evil among all people, nations, kindreds and tongues.
>
> According to the Bible, if a prophet gives even ONE false prophesy, HE
> is not a prophet of God. Smith gave many. Does your religon now own
> the temple in Independence, Missouri? Didn't smith "prophesy" that it
> would and would ALWAYS hold it? If you look closely, you will find
> MANY such false prophesies by smith. If SOME come true and SOME fail,
> then how is he any different from any of the other "prophets" such as
> nostradamus?
Time vindicates the prophets. There are many prophecies which have
been made which have not yet come to pass and others which are
contingent upon the actions of a people. For example, the prophets
prophesied that city of Jerusalem would be destroyed if the people did
not repent, which means that though it may not have been specifically
stated that the city would be protected from danger if the people were
righteous. We know that in the sixth century BC that Jerusalem was
taken into captivity by the Babylonians. It may also be that we
perceive a prophecy to be unfulfilled when in reality it may have been
fulfilled in a way which we did not expect.
> > He prophesied that the church would fill the earth and today we are a
> >global church and are able to be found in every country which allows us
> >to be there. These are a few among many.
>
> But if he is wrong on even ONE, then he is not a prophet of God,
> according to the Bible. And I beleive the Bible.
> >
> >> b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
> >> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
> >> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
> >
> >Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with any such claims of a
> >fraudulent source being used to establish the fallacy of the Book of
> >Abraham to give a response to this question. I do still believe that
> >the book is divinely inspired and is of great scriptural value.
>
> That is an area you REALLY need to look into. It does not make sense
> if smith lied about what the papyrus said that his resultant "text"
> should be believed to be authentic. If he lied about the source, then
> the resultant "translation" cannot possibly be true. He might as well
> have "translated" a comic book if the source has nothing to do with
> the result.
In order to understand or know the truth of something, must I read and
consider every single shred of so called "evidence" that what I hold as
truth to be incorrect? To undertake such an endeavor would consume the
entirety of the rest of my life and I would still be no closer to
coming to a viable conclusion than I was when I began.
There is much that is written in an effort to disprove Christianity.
Do you spend the entirety of your time making an effort to go out and
read and disprove every single item that has been produced always
questioning your own faith, or have you decided to take a stand in your
faith in Christianity knowing that there might be a very, very, very
extreme chance that you are wrong. I think it very safe to say that
you have chosen the latter course and so have I.
To take a stand in your belief may be perceived by others as burying
your head in the sand, but still you take the chance in your assurance
that you are holding onto something that *is* truly precious.
I am not offended in the least. Rather I welcome an honest discussion
of my beliefs and to hear the viewpoints of others and to reason
together to see if we might come to a state of having been mutually
benefited by our interaction with one another, though we might begin
and end in a state of disagreement. If nothing else we have gained an
understanding of *why* the other person takes the stand that they have.
John P
That is because mormons think they are more christian than Christians.
Joe said god told him that their creeds are an abomination. If I was a
Christian, I wouldn't like some crack head cult leader telling me I was
an apostate Christian. Mormonism is arrogant.
Just Wondering wrote:
> Etgel wrote:
> > I Interject here to observe some things;
> >
> > You Chec~ dude asked people what we believed.
> > Diannaiad answered in the most honest and concise form possible.
> > You are not happy, you are not satisfied with the message, you want to
> > roast the messanger.
> > I posted a direct answer to several of your questions.
> > I had the decency to answer several of your questions honestly just as
> > you wanted,
> > but you, not seeing me as points to score, did not have the decency to
> > even thank me for my time.
> > You never wanted truth, you want fresh virgin mormon BLOOD.
> > Etgel
> >
>
> I believe that a person who claims to be a Christian, but tries to
> castigate members of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints as not
> being Christians, is acting directly contrary to the teachings of Christ
> and is himself really not a Christian regardless of what he claims.
--
The believer is not at liberty to have a conscience for the question
"true" and "untrue": to be upright on this point would mean his
immediate downfall. --Nietzsche
Iosepa Hawaii Loa
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:19:28 -0600, Iosepa Hawaii Loa
> <ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:
>
>>Almost all LdS missionaries who had to preach in a foreign language has at
>>least one story about the gift of tongues. As I've posted, I knew nothing
>>of Portuguese when I was called to serve in Brasil. I arrived in the
>>country on a Wednesday and was asked to give my first talk that Sunday.
>>Somehow I spoke for over 20 minutes and the congregation understood me.
>
> How do you know? Did you speak English? or Portuguese? Hadn't you
> gone to some language school before getting there? If you spoke
> "baby" Portuguese, don't you think it would be REASONABLE that they
> would understand you? If you spoke English, are you not aware that
> American English is fast becoming the International language of the
> western world? Did they speak English?
In the MTC (Missionary Training Center) I had 4 weeks of instruction in
English about how to teach, then 4 weeks of instruction in the Portuguese
language. Prior to entering the MTC I did not speak a single word of
Portuguese. I went to the MTC in Provo, Utah.
I spoke Portuguese for those 20 minutes. The first 3 minutes were a brief
introduction of myself, followed by a discourse about Jesus' atonement.
It was impromptu - I was asked just a few minutes before the meeting - so
I didn't have time to look-up words in my dictionary or practice
pronunciation.
This meeting took place the 2nd Sunday of October of 1995 in the
relatively small city of Americana. The Miranda family can back me up.
>>Healings. When I was 8 or 9, my sister fell down a hole and landed on her
>>back on a cement slab (it was a sun-roof deally for an underground
>>facility). She fell a good 12 feet. My dad rushed down there (using the
>>stairs of course) and gave her a blessing. When we arrived at the
>>hospital, nothing was found wrong with her, and after a couple ofdays of
>>precautionary rest my sister was running around again.
>>
> I have to tell you I am not much impressed with anecdotal "evidence."
> I have heard some of the strangest, wildest, and beyond a doubt, the
> most DISHONEST things claimed by fringe pentecostals, people who had
> no form of Christianity at all, and pseudo-scientists of the same
> kinds of stuff.
It is not in my nature to lie. On the net I use false names and change a
few names to protect the identity of friends and family, but all else is
true.
This incident took place by the old Page School on BYU Provo Campus. This
building has thence been torn down and replaced by a parking lot. Page
School housed several scientific libraries and laboratories - some of
which were underground with roofs that opened to allow equipment to be
lowered.
I did not see how my sister fell through the opening, but I heard her
screams, and saw her laying still on the concrete. I admit to filling a
few gaps of my first-hand account with details provided by my father.
The only real independent evidence that this ever took place is my
sister's admittance papers to Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.
We are communicating via usenet; its very nature makes it hard to verify
anything about the poster. It's fairly simple (though illegal) to mask
your very IP address. You don't have a photo of me, so you don't really
know my race or gender, only what I've told you (I'm a male haole). The
only "proof" of me being from Hawaii are the my handle, the state motto in
my footer, and the Pidgin words I include in my posts. YOU have to decide
how much you trust anything I say.
dianaiad
John P wrote:
> That is because mormons think they are more christian than Christians.
> Joe said god told him that their creeds are an abomination. If I was a
> Christian, I wouldn't like some crack head cult leader telling me I was
> an apostate Christian. Mormonism is arrogant.
More arrogant than, say, the followers of Martin Luther or John Calvin
or any number of other Protestants, who did (and still do ) the same
thing to all the other flavors of Christianity, and with far less cause?
Don in Las Vegas
wierd off centered beliefs, and Checker is not alone in distain for the
trickery that Mormon Missionaries use on people. How often do they
knock on someones door and tell them that Blacks could not hold the
Priesthood, and what Brigham Young said as a Prophet about Blacks!! Do
they discuss Adam/God, or the Celestial Kingdom?? They are part of the
LDS teachings so why not have them in the discussions?? The reason that
these deep and dark secrets that the Mormons are trying to scoot away
from is that if they were to tell the non-member this they would get
booted out the door!!!
Non Mormons have the right to defend themselves and their beliefs,
family and members from a village idiot that skips down the street
pulling tins cans attatched to their butt by strings thinking that the
whole world is as happy to see them as they are happy to see themself.
I do not like the Mormon theology, period. No apologies. The LDS have
beliefs that are not from the original church of Christs time, or
todays Church. Where are the baptismal fonts that the original
Christians did baptisms for thier dead in since this is a restored
Church, where are the original temples in this truly restored Church?
Bro, the LDS Church is a Jim Jones Grape Kool-aid society that just got
out of hand and the mold grew.
You would choke to know the people in the world that agree with
Checkers view. I went to the Temple, I was a Member (still am because
they just keep forgetting to remove my name), I served a full two year
mission and regret every day of the two years. Save your pablum for
those that want it. Thinking rational people know what is up, and it's
not the Mormon beliefs.
Don in Las Vegas
Alan B. wrote:
> On Oct 15, 5:01 pm, checker @flipper.com wrote:
> > Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
> > we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
> > religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
> >
> > So here is your opportunity!!!
>
> Checker,
>
> You speak as though "Mormons" owe you something or that they need to
> answer to you. You speak as though you're in some authoritative
> position to require some kind of accounting from your peon
> subordinates. You speak as though you have some kind of ownership in
> this newsgroup, when in actuality, it was created for "Mormons" to get
> together and discuss whatever--not antagonists to come in, spewing
> patronizing and condescending, regurgitated points that most of us have
> already heard and/or read, and dealt with, quite managebly. But,
> arrogant and hostile jerks like you come along and ruin it. Ever
> notice that only cantankerous and "eye for an eye"-types like myself
> really only frequent this forum? And even then, I only show up when
> I've got nothing better to do. You'll never find any typical "Mormons"
> on this forum because they don't have time for your self-righteous
> stupidity.
>
> Your invitation carries with it the same kind of hostility and
> immaturity of an inner-city gangsta inviting a rival gang to a "rumble"
> (or whatever modern-day homies call it). "Hey, all you stupid Mormons!
> I"m a Christian! Come out here so I can kick your ass for believing
> the stupid things that you believe in!"
>
> Christ really went around with that kind of attitude, didn't He? He
> certainly went around putting people on the defensive and taunting
> them, didn't He? That type of behavior usually emanated from the
> Pharisees and Saducees, didn't it? You simply exposed yourself for
> what you really are--someone who professes with his mouth, but
> inwardly, is another story.
>
> Are you actually for real? Nice try.
John P
dianaiad
John P wrote:
> Here she goes again. mormons have no respect for Christians.
We respect Christians. We have to. We ARE Christians. We also respect
OTHER Christians...far more than they respect each other.
After all, we broke away from mainstream Christianity because our
leaders recieved revelation from God telling them to do so. Martin
Luther, et. al, had no such excuse; they did it simply because, in
THEIR opinion, they were right and the Catholics were wrong. Now what
is more arrogant: to do something because you believe God told you to
do so, or to do it knowing from the get go that it is all your idea and
that God had nothing to do with it?
THAT is what Luther and the others did. They did not claim, and indeed,
vehemently denied, any divine revelation in what they did. They did it
simply because they took it into their heads to do so.
Whether they were correct in some of their conclusions or not is quite
another discussion; this is simply and only about whether they broke
away because they had a revelation from God, or whether they decided
that they personally knew more than the leaders of the current church
did.
There is something about that idea that says 'arrogance' far more than
any claim of divine revelation would be.
checker
<ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:43:17 -0600, checker wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:19:28 -0600, Iosepa Hawaii Loa
>> <ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Almost all LdS missionaries who had to preach in a foreign language has at
>>>least one story about the gift of tongues. As I've posted, I knew nothing
>>>of Portuguese when I was called to serve in Brasil. I arrived in the
>>>country on a Wednesday and was asked to give my first talk that Sunday.
>>>Somehow I spoke for over 20 minutes and the congregation understood me.
>>
>> How do you know? Did you speak English? or Portuguese? Hadn't you
>> gone to some language school before getting there? If you spoke
>> "baby" Portuguese, don't you think it would be REASONABLE that they
>> would understand you? If you spoke English, are you not aware that
>> American English is fast becoming the International language of the
>> western world? Did they speak English?
>
>In the MTC (Missionary Training Center) I had 4 weeks of instruction in
>English about how to teach, then 4 weeks of instruction in the Portuguese
>language. Prior to entering the MTC I did not speak a single word of
>Portuguese. I went to the MTC in Provo, Utah.
After 4 weeks of instruction in Portuguese at teh MTC, your language
skills would normally be expected to be the equivalent of about a
six-year-old Portuguese child or better, I would expect. When I was
in Germany I had one week in a German Language School (US Army), and
by the end of it I could carry on simple conversations with most
non-English speaking German people. I had about the same experience
in a specialized University program in Spanish after about 4 weeks.
So your speaking to them in Portuguese doesn't sound like the "gift of
tongues" to me. It simply sounds like reasonably good basic training
in THAT tongue.
>
>I spoke Portuguese for those 20 minutes. The first 3 minutes were a brief
>introduction of myself, followed by a discourse about Jesus' atonement.
>It was impromptu - I was asked just a few minutes before the meeting - so
>I didn't have time to look-up words in my dictionary or practice
>pronunciation.
>
>This meeting took place the 2nd Sunday of October of 1995 in the
>relatively small city of Americana. The Miranda family can back me up.
I don't doubt it at all.
>
>>>Healings. When I was 8 or 9, my sister fell down a hole and landed on her
>>>back on a cement slab (it was a sun-roof deally for an underground
>>>facility). She fell a good 12 feet. My dad rushed down there (using the
>>>stairs of course) and gave her a blessing. When we arrived at the
>>>hospital, nothing was found wrong with her, and after a couple ofdays of
>>>precautionary rest my sister was running around again.
>>>
>> I have to tell you I am not much impressed with anecdotal "evidence."
>> I have heard some of the strangest, wildest, and beyond a doubt, the
>> most DISHONEST things claimed by fringe pentecostals, people who had
>> no form of Christianity at all, and pseudo-scientists of the same
>> kinds of stuff.
>
>It is not in my nature to lie. On the net I use false names and change a
>few names to protect the identity of friends and family, but all else is
>true.
I didn't mean to imply that you did so. There are many such incidents
over the years to people of all (and no) religions. And on the other
side, there have been people who have merely tripped over their own
feet, hit their head, and died. I merely wanted you to realize that
anecdotal evidence like that is not necessarily any great intervention
by God.
>
>This incident took place by the old Page School on BYU Provo Campus. This
>building has thence been torn down and replaced by a parking lot. Page
>School housed several scientific libraries and laboratories - some of
>which were underground with roofs that opened to allow equipment to be
>lowered.
>
>I did not see how my sister fell through the opening, but I heard her
>screams, and saw her laying still on the concrete. I admit to filling a
>few gaps of my first-hand account with details provided by my father.
>
>The only real independent evidence that this ever took place is my
>sister's admittance papers to Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.
Again, I have no doubt at all that it happened just as you said.
Whether it was a "miracle" or just had to do with the way she fell,
landed, or anyhing else is the question for me. I have no reason to
believe it was a miracle. The same type of things happen to heathens.
Now if she had been pronounced dead at the hospital, then came back to
life three days later. . .THEN I would be impressed!
>
>We are communicating via usenet; its very nature makes it hard to verify
>anything about the poster. It's fairly simple (though illegal) to mask
>your very IP address. You don't have a photo of me, so you don't really
>know my race or gender, only what I've told you (I'm a male haole). The
>only "proof" of me being from Hawaii are the my handle, the state motto in
>my footer, and the Pidgin words I include in my posts. YOU have to decide
>how much you trust anything I say.
>
I do not distrust your accounts above at all. The questions we have
been discussing have been about tongues (your church claims to have
them) and miracles (ditto), and your two accounts which were (I think)
supposed to have been examples of each.
I do not doubt that these things happened, but I DO doubt either of
them was the spiritual gifts being discussed for the reasons I gave.
I too am a male haole (or a honkey, depending on who askes).
I am even a male gringo!
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
checker
wrote:
The BIG QUESTION is "is YOUR God the same god as the God of the
Bible?" I would have to say that if your god is the god of mormonism,
he is not, and I would cite Biblical evidence that this is True (as I
have in the past to other folks). And that is the reason we
historical Christians do not consider mormons to be "Christian."
Different Christs, and different Gods.
All sorts of things effect your emotions. How well or poorly you do
at something important, physical injury, adrenelin rushes, lack of
sleep, sugar, and childbirth are just a small sampling of things that
effect your emotions. I have never experienced childbirth either, but
my wife has. It is a well-know fact that women go through extreme
mood-swings when pregnant, post-partum depression after delivery.
And how you feel effects what you think and believe. If you are
depressed, you might not believe that doing something will be good for
you, although if you are happy and excited, you might not doubt it at
all!
>
>To what end are such things given if not to edify and lead one to the
>truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Jesus said:
John 17:17
17 Sanctify them by Your truth . Your word is truth
NKJV
His WORD. Not their emotions. Not their feelings. Not their
sincerity of belief.
God's WORD, the Bible is Truth.
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work.
NKJV
According to what God spoke through Paul and Jesus, we are to examine
things IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE, not based upon our own emotions or
"feelings." Not on the basis of what you "feel" is true.
>It is during the peace of the
>early morning when there is little else going on around me that I feel
>that I do my best thinking. The joy of service to others and knowing
>that I am living a life in harmony with the commandments of God causes
>a state of mind when the problems of life do not seem so overwhelming.
>Patience and long-suffering are two virtues with which I sometimes
>struggle, but I notice that when I do exercise them that there is an
>acuity to my focus which does not come at any other time.
True with me as well. It is not the commandments of God that matter
to me however (Jesus' commands are easy, His yoke is light), but
FELLOWSHIP with Him is something I enjoy greatly!
>
>> > However, in Galatians 5 the
>> >fruits of the Spirit are listed as nothing but feelings.
>>
>> They are more than feelings; they are continuous states of mind.
>>
>> You may be at peace for a moment, but the peace spoken of there lasts
>> longer than the moment. For my wife and me it has lasted 32+ years so
>> far. Same with our joy, our longsuffering, and all of the rest.
>
>Suppose that I experience a feeling of peace and/or joy while reading
>and meditating upon the words of the Bible. This would be the Spirit
>of God. I would hope that there would be no argument there.
None at all.
>But then
>suppose that I experience the exact same feelings, or state of mind
>while reading and meditating upon the words of the Book of Mormon? Do
>I discount such feelings because they have not been experienced by
>every other person in the world? Or do I put my faith that both contain
>the gospel of Jesus Christ and both fall into the category of scripture
>that has been explained in Timothy?
You can get the same feelings from reading the writings of Ghandi, or
Mother Theresa, or many others. You can get the same feelings from
watching a "Hallmark commercial" on television or watching a
television show in which a little boy becomes a hero.
That doesn't make those feelings become "of God" however.
Feelings do NOT equal Truth. Truth is the way things REALLY ARE, not
the way they feel.
>
>> A "deep burning in the bosom" is a momentary thing.
>>
>> The Fruit of the Spriti is not.
>>
>> >Jesus Christ
>> >appeared to two of the apostles following his crucifixion and one said
>> >to the other, "Did not our hearts burn within us?" In my mind this is
>> >another feeling produced by the teachings of Christ, though at the time
>> >the two apostles did not recognize him.
>>
>> Luke 24:30-32
>>
>> 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread,
>> and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
>> 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out
>> of their sight.
>> 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us,
>> while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the
>> scriptures?
>> KJV
>
>Interesting. If memory serves it has been said by other participants
>in this group that such a burning has not been associated with the
>study or participation in seeking the truth of the scriptures. Yet in
>the reference cited above it states that this burning took place while
>Christ was sharing with the apostles the words of the scriptures. What
>was the purpose of this burning, if not to confirm the words of Christ
>to the hearts of those who heard?
The term in the passage is referring to excitement felt as they
learned the scriptures. It says nothing about a mystical "absorbtion
of truth." I too get excited when I learn new things from the Bible,
but that does not mean that the excitement (the "burning in the bosom"
described here) is why I believe it to be True. I believe it to be
True because of heaps of evidence that I have seen before that
indicate that the things in the Bible are True and from God.
Faith is not blind acceptance based upon feelings or emotions. It is
based upon SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE. We see the substance and evidence
as we read/see/hear the Word of God, the Bible (66 books by some 39
different sources).
>
>> Their hearts burned within them (they were excited), but it does not
>> say that it was that "burning" that told them He was Jesus. It was
>> not until he broke and blessed the bread and gave it to them that they
>> recognized them.
>
>It seems that the apostles failed to identify the feeling that they
>were experiencing until after they realized that it was Christ who
>spoke to them. It is almost as if they didn't connect that the feeling
>of burning within to the words of Christ until after the feeling had
>passed. Though they may not have recognized him until after the fact,
>they did realize that it was the words of Christ which generated the
>feeling.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us,
while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the
scriptures?
Not according to the scriptures. WHILE he walked with them, and WHILE
he opened the scriptures to them. NOT "later" after they recognized
him. Your timeline is wrong.
>
>> The "burning" here was NOT a "test of truth" or "proof of truth" as is
>> claimed by the "burning in the bosom" of the mormons I have ever met.
>
>Was it mere excitement then? I think it was something much more than
>that, for there are many things which could cause excitement which have
>nothing to do with the words of Christ.
But it was while He TALKED with them and while HE OPENED THE
SCRIPTURES to them that they became excited.
Becoming excited is NOT a "test of truth" or "proof of truth." When
we were young marrieds, my wife missed a period and we were excited
that she was pregnant. She wasn't. Our excitement did not make it
true nor did our excitement attest to the truth of her supposed
pregnancy. It was a RESPONSE to what we imagined to be true.
Feelings do NOT require truth to exist. Excitement over a sermon at
church camp does NOT mean the person became a Christian at all. It
may just mean that he was excited.
>
>> > If the fruits of the spirit
>> >are feelings, and the very teaching of Christ caused a feeling, then I
>> >would wonder why the mainstream Christians are so set against putting
>> >any faith in feelings unless such feelings confirm a truth which they
>> >wish to deny.
>>
>> The Bible NEVER says to base our beliefs of what is True or not on the
>> basis of feelings. Our judgements are to be based on SCRIPTURE (that
>> is what SCRIPTURE is for, according to 2 Timothy 3:16).
>
>How then are we to know what is scripture? I read your response to
>Iosepa and if I understand correctly you are stating that the Bible is
>a compilation of the writings of many different men over the course of
>1600+ years (forgive me if I am off on the number) and these facts
>establish the validity of the claims of the Bible to be the word of
>God.
The number is only an estimate, so it doesn't matter.
>
>So if the test is true for one, let us look at the claims of the Book
>of Mormon. According to LDS belief, it was not written by the hand of
>Joseph Smith. Rather it was the writing of several different men which
>spanned a time period from the destruction of the tower of Babel until
>roughly the fifth century AD.
Smith said so, but NO factual evidence supports him. NOT ONE SHRED of
archaeological evidence anywhere can be connected to the bom, its
peoples, places or events. Completely different than with the Bible.
Biblical places existed (we have found most of them, exactly where
they are supposed to be). Biblical peoples existed (we have writings,
coins, even libraries from them). Biblical events happened (many of
the events in the Bible are recorded elsewhere, by people who were not
believers in Jesus Christ).
NO such evidence is there to support the bom.
NO text to check smith's so-called "translation" against.
NO other translations to compare.
NOBODY'S word except smith that any such stuff was even ON the plates.
Nobody's word except smith's that the people, places, or events ever
existed at all.
NOTHING. The writing of ONE man, smith. No evidence anywhere that
any other men in the book ever existed.
For the Bible, we have over 5,200 manuscripts from the first few
centuries, quotations from the NT from others who were there (like
Polycarp and others) either then or immediately after, etc., and
things like that.
For the bom. . .NOTHING.
>
>In both cases we have a claimed compilation of the writings of several
>different authors covering a great expanse of time. Both make the
>claim, how do we know if one is more right than the other?
The Bible is considered the Word of God by both sides of the
discussion, and there is EVIDENCE that the Bible is an authentic
collection of writings.
The bom is NOT considered to be the Word of God by both of us, is the
"new guy on the block" and should therefore be examined IN LIGHT of
the Bible, and there is NO evidence that the bom is anything more than
the imaginations of joseph smith.
Which do YOU want to base the rest of eternity for yourself on?
>
>> That does NOT MEAN that we Christians are against HAVING feelings. We
>> have love, and we FEEL love. We have compassion and we FEEL
>> compassion. We do not "decide" what is worthy of either on the basis
>> of the feeling however, we make those decisions on the basis of
>> SCRIPTURE, as the Bible teaches us to do.
>>
>> 2 Tim 3:16-17
>> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
>> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
>> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
>> equipped for every good work.
>> NKJV
>
>So then the only question in my mind would be whether God only gave
>inspiration to the prophets of the Bible, or whether there were
>prophets on the American Continent who also received such inspiration
>and whose compiled works now are found within the Book of Mormon. If
>he did, then the Christian world is ignoring a very important portion
>of God's revealed word.
Other than smith's imagination, there is no reason to beleive that
there were prophets on the American continent, in China, or in
Australia either. You may wonder whether God did such things, but
unless you have HONEST EVIDENCE that He did, any claim that He did
would be nothing more than supposition and guessing.
Or in the case of smith, imagining and making up.
>
>> There is NO place in the Bible that says feelings are for deciding
>> what is true or false.
>
>But the Bible does say in numerous places, particularly in the New
>Testament to ask, seek, and knock with a promise that if we do so that
>we shall receive, find, and have things opened to us.
If we seek HIM we will find HIM. That is NOT a formula to determine
whether something is True or not.
>It also contains
>a promise in James 1:5-6 that those who ask in faith may receive wisdom
>from God. Does this wisdom come by hearing an actual voice, seeing a
>vision, or might it come by the fruits of the Spirit?
Wisdom is NOT the same thing as knowledge. You are comparing apples
and oranges.
My son has the KNOWLEDGE that smoking causes cancer (he is a cancer
survivor) but he does not have the WISDOM to stop.
Wisdom is what you DO with your knowledge. True wisdom is knowing
God's Will AND DOING IT.
When you pray for wisdom, you are led to do what God wants you to do.
sometimes you learn (receive knowledge) new things, but that.
Sometimes you are led to use a different tool to obtain the objective
you were already working towards. Sometimes you see what you already
had in a more clear light.
Not feelings, but guidance on how to DO what God wants you to do.
>John 14:26
>states that the Holy Ghost shall be sent to us to teach us all things,
>and to bring all things to our rememberance.
Correct.
>
>> >I have had such feelings within soul which I can only understand to be
>> >a confirmation of the divinely sanctioned mission and calling of Joseph
>> >Smith.
>>
>> That is fine, and I have had the same feelings that I can only
>> understand to be the confirmation of the fact that Joseph Smith was a
>> false prophet.
>
>If the Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead and cannot lie, then it
>would only seem logical to think that one of us has been deceived.
Exactly true! And we both know there are OTHER spirits out there.
>
>> So it behooves BOTH of us to do the following:
>>
>> 1 Thess 5:19-22
>> 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
>> things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
>> NKJV
>>
>> And HOW do we test? BY SCRIPTURE.
>
>Again, there also comes the question as to how we determine what is
>scripture.
We both KNOW (not just because one single individual says so, but
because of evidence it is true) that the Bible is from God. You
believe it, I believe it, and even smith said He beleived the Bible to
be from God, so we can use the BIBLE as a valid measuring stick.
Doing that, the writings of smith fail; they contradict the Bible and
each other.
>
>> We KNOW the Bible is true. I believe it. I think YOU believe it.
>> Smith said HE believed it.
>
>At least we have that in common. I have one question here. Does the
>Bible contain the entirety of the revealed word of God to mankind from
>Adam to the present?
I believe it does. If it didn't, at least nothing else that comes
from God would contradict what He said in it.
Jesus accepted the OT in its entirety. He quoted from the Septuagint
regularly and called it "the word of God." That covers 2/3 of the
Bible by itself. If Jesus was satisfied with it, I am too.
> I do not possess a vast knowledge of the origins
>of the Bible, but from what I understand what we now have as the Bible
>is a result of a rigorous selection process of a great myriad of
>purported religious texts. I don't know exactly what conditions were
>to be satisfied in order to produce an agreement as to what should be
>included in the bible or to not be included. I do allow the
>possibility that there could have been texts which were indeed
>authentically given from the mouth of God which we do not currently
>have in the Bible. I also allow the possibility that the Bible may
>have had text admitted which is not authentically from the mouth of God
>which is a great reason that I believe in the stipulation that "we
>believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated (and
>I would also add compiled) correctly.
The rcc makes a big thing out of the supposedly rcc gathering together
of the NT texts and deciding what was "canon" as if their declarations
made something come from God or not to have come from God.
The reality is that there have been other canons as well, and there
was no great dispute between Christians about which books to include
except a couple of epistles and the book of Revelation which a few
wanted to exclude.
There are lots of spurious books out there, most of which were written
centuries later and are certainly false.
>
>I do not discount the bible because of its possible frailties; rather I
>embrace it because of the truth which I believe with all of my heart
>that it contains. I use it as a means to gain a greater understanding
>of who Christ was and what I can do in my life to more closely follow
>him. The frailty is in man, not in God.
>
>> The teachings and prophesies in question are the ones brough by smith,
>> so the proper test is to hold them up to the BIBLE and see if they are
>> true.
>>
>> That is what the Bereans did with Paul, and they were praise for it.
>>
>> >Another scriptural reference states that those who are sent of God may
>> >be discerned by making an evaluation of their 'fruits.' The Book of
>> >Mormon is such a fruit which I have read and found to be in accordance
>> >with the teachings of the Bible.
>>
>> I too have read it, and what I found was completely the opposite of
>> what you found, so the proper thing is to COMPARE THE TEACHINGS, and
>> if the bom falls short, then REJECT IT, if it does not, then ACCEPT
>> IT.
>
>So one of us has found the teachings to be in harmony and the other has
>found the teachings to be in disagreement or contradiction. Which of
>us is correct is a debate which has already spanned almost two
>centuries.
That does not make it any less important that we examine it and come
to the right conclusion. Our eternal lives depend on it.
>
>> On that basis, I and many other Christians have REJECTED IT, a Godly
>> thing to do.
>
>Now there is a point of divergence for sure, at least so far as you
>state that it is Godly to reject the Book of Mormon. Though we
>disagree on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church,
>I can respect your reasons for rejecting it, for you have taken the
>time to put it to the test.
In truth, I have tested it with multiple tests. Not only the "burning
in the bosom" test, but scripture versus the various writings of
smith's tests, a lot of them.
>Such a test is something that many
>Christians have not actually taken the time to do, but rather dismiss
>it wholesale because of the opinions of those to whom they are close,
>the opinions of their ministers or simply because they have no desire
>to put forth the effort to seek for themselves.
Usually it falls into the same category as Mary Baker Eddy's "Science
and Health," Moons "Divine Principle," and other so-called writings
that come from God. Most Christians are not easily led to read the
writings of so-called "modern-day-prophets."
Have YOU read (or prayed over) Science & Health, the Divine Principle,
or the Vedas? If not, then why should you expect most Christians to
do so with smith's stuff?
I did it because all of my friends were mormons, my co-workers were
mormons, and because they said I could find out more about God by
doing so. It was a special circumstance, not something anyone in a
non-mormon area would normally do.
>
>> >They stand together as witnesses from
>> >two continents as witnesses of the mission and divinity of Jesus
>> >Christ.
>>
>> They CLAIM to do so, but upon closer examination, they do not do so.
>
>I would like to think that I have made a pretty good examination of
>both, especially prior to and during my mission. I would hate to think
>that I had devoted such a great amount of time and energy into
>misleading good and honest people.
And yet, ONE of us has to be deceived. I too have led many people,
and would hate to think I had misled them. I have led more than a few
away from the mormon church.
So the question still stands. . .is smith's work true or false?
And which of us is deceived?
And what is the GODLY thing to do about it?
>
>> >Another means by which one may assess a prophets validity is
>> >by means of the fulfillment of prophecy. It is my belief that Joseph
>> >made prophecies which have been fulfilled such as his name being had
>> >both for good and evil among all people, nations, kindreds and tongues.
>>
>> According to the Bible, if a prophet gives even ONE false prophesy, HE
>> is not a prophet of God. Smith gave many. Does your religon now own
>> the temple in Independence, Missouri? Didn't smith "prophesy" that it
>> would and would ALWAYS hold it? If you look closely, you will find
>> MANY such false prophesies by smith. If SOME come true and SOME fail,
>> then how is he any different from any of the other "prophets" such as
>> nostradamus?
>
>Time vindicates the prophets. There are many prophecies which have
>been made which have not yet come to pass and others which are
>contingent upon the actions of a people. For example, the prophets
>prophesied that city of Jerusalem would be destroyed if the people did
>not repent, which means that though it may not have been specifically
>stated that the city would be protected from danger if the people were
>righteous. We know that in the sixth century BC that Jerusalem was
>taken into captivity by the Babylonians. It may also be that we
>perceive a prophecy to be unfulfilled when in reality it may have been
>fulfilled in a way which we did not expect.
That does not negate the fact that smith made some just plain false
prophesies. Someone named Nancy posted the following link
http://www.irr.org/mit/jsfalpro.html
If you go there, you will find some of them, clearly false prophesies
that never happened and that the time for them to happen has run out
long ago.
That puts smith in the prophesy business on the same level as
nostradumus and others who are not from God and don't claim to be from
God at all.
>
>> > He prophesied that the church would fill the earth and today we are a
>> >global church and are able to be found in every country which allows us
>> >to be there. These are a few among many.
>>
>> But if he is wrong on even ONE, then he is not a prophet of God,
>> according to the Bible. And I beleive the Bible.
>> >
>> >> b. How do you "explain" the fraudulant source of the Book of Abraham
>> >> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
>> >> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
>> >
>> >Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with any such claims of a
>> >fraudulent source being used to establish the fallacy of the Book of
>> >Abraham to give a response to this question. I do still believe that
>> >the book is divinely inspired and is of great scriptural value.
>>
>> That is an area you REALLY need to look into. It does not make sense
>> if smith lied about what the papyrus said that his resultant "text"
>> should be believed to be authentic. If he lied about the source, then
>> the resultant "translation" cannot possibly be true. He might as well
>> have "translated" a comic book if the source has nothing to do with
>> the result.
>
>In order to understand or know the truth of something, must I read and
>consider every single shred of so called "evidence" that what I hold as
>truth to be incorrect? To undertake such an endeavor would consume the
>entirety of the rest of my life and I would still be no closer to
>coming to a viable conclusion than I was when I began.
There is no question that the the papyrus smith claimed to be his
source for the book of Abraham is false. Even the LDS church admits
it is a funeral papyrus. I have never heard a satisfactory
"explanation" concerning how smith was supposed to have "translated"
text from it that is not there.
It would seem prudent for you to examine the validity of the things
(apparently the ONLY thing) of substance you can check for validity
about the writings you are basing your eternal life upon.
I have done hundreds, if not thousands of hours of research concerning
the authenticity of the Bible, the history of the Bible, the
historicity of the Bible, the transmissal of the Bible, the
translation of the Bible, etc. and the evidence is overwhelming that
the writings are indeed from when and where they claim to be, and are
accurately kept and translated.
>
>There is much that is written in an effort to disprove Christianity.
>Do you spend the entirety of your time making an effort to go out and
>read and disprove every single item that has been produced always
>questioning your own faith, or have you decided to take a stand in your
>faith in Christianity knowing that there might be a very, very, very
>extreme chance that you are wrong. I think it very safe to say that
>you have chosen the latter course and so have I.
Yet you have ONLY ONE document to check, and your own church
acknowledges that it is a funeral papyrus.
So there is a difference between your not checking the ONE thing out
and my not checking out every negative thing.
I have btw, checked out MANY of the claims that have been made against
Christianity, perhaps even most of them (how many ARE there?), and
found them to be poorly thought out, based upon false information,
inaccurate knowledge, and/or just plain bad logic. Do not assume that
I do any less examination of other people's claims against historical
Christianity than I do of smiths. What began when I was a very young
Christian spread to a study of MANY different religions, done in the
same manner.
I have read the Qur'an and can give you solid reasons not to believe
it. Same with the Divine Priniciple and Science and Health. I have
NOT read the vedas since nobody is around here to help me navigate
that religion (one of their own).
And frequently by testing other people's beliefs, I discover that I
haven't thought out some particular thing I have believed and have to
examine THAT in the light of scripture as well to see if I should or
should not believe that particular thing.
>
>To take a stand in your belief may be perceived by others as burying
>your head in the sand, but still you take the chance in your assurance
>that you are holding onto something that *is* truly precious.
There is a story about an aborigine (sp?) that found a pop bottle when
it was dropped from an airplane, and he thought it was a god. He
believed this coke bottle was something that was "TRULY" precious.
That did not make it so.
The Truth can stand being held up to the light. Fakes cannot be.
I think we are doing pretty good so far, don't you?
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
Eric
<snip>
> The BIG QUESTION is "is YOUR God the same god as the God of the
> Bible?" I would have to say that if your god is the god of mormonism,
> he is not, and I would cite Biblical evidence that this is True (as I
> have in the past to other folks). And that is the reason we
> historical Christians do not consider mormons to be "Christian."
> Different Christs, and different Gods.
We understand the Bible differently so to answer this question in the
affirmative would be pointless. Rather I will say that the God that I
have found in the Bible is the same as is found in the Book of Mormon
and other writings which I consider to be scriptural. I think that
ultimately we do believe in the same God, though we believe different
things about who he is and what his purposes are.
<snip>
> >Hmm, I've never experience childbirth so I wouldn't know what effect
> >that would have on one's judgment, though having witnessed it in one
> >form or another, this is something for which I am grateful, though I
> >admire the courage of women to go through such pain in order to bring
> >children into the world. Sugar may cause hyperactivity and/or some
> >degree of silliness in some, but generally sugar seems to be somewhat
> >beneficial to the operation of the body. Now, I will readily admit
> >that fear and anger are emotions which have the potential to cause a
> >lack of clear judgment. However, it seems to me that such are quite
> >different than feelings of love, joy, peace and the other fruits of the
> >Spirit of God.
>
> All sorts of things effect your emotions. How well or poorly you do
> at something important, physical injury, adrenelin rushes, lack of
> sleep, sugar, and childbirth are just a small sampling of things that
> effect your emotions. I have never experienced childbirth either, but
> my wife has. It is a well-know fact that women go through extreme
> mood-swings when pregnant, post-partum depression after delivery.
Still, everything you list is nowhere near what has been listed as the
fruits of the Spirit.
> And how you feel effects what you think and believe. If you are
> depressed, you might not believe that doing something will be good for
> you, although if you are happy and excited, you might not doubt it at
> all!
> >
> >To what end are such things given if not to edify and lead one to the
> >truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
>
> Jesus said:
> John 17:17
> 17 Sanctify them by Your truth . Your word is truth
> NKJV
>
> His WORD. Not their emotions. Not their feelings. Not their
> sincerity of belief.
>
> God's WORD, the Bible is Truth.
There still has to be a way to know what God's word is by a
manifestation of the Spirit which will confirm what is truly his and
what is not.
> 2 Tim 3:16-17
> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
> equipped for every good work.
> NKJV
>
> According to what God spoke through Paul and Jesus, we are to examine
> things IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE, not based upon our own emotions or
> "feelings." Not on the basis of what you "feel" is true.
Then short of an actual manifestation of God, how do you truly know
what is scripture and what is not?
> >It is during the peace of the
> >early morning when there is little else going on around me that I feel
> >that I do my best thinking. The joy of service to others and knowing
> >that I am living a life in harmony with the commandments of God causes
> >a state of mind when the problems of life do not seem so overwhelming.
> >Patience and long-suffering are two virtues with which I sometimes
> >struggle, but I notice that when I do exercise them that there is an
> >acuity to my focus which does not come at any other time.
>
> True with me as well. It is not the commandments of God that matter
> to me however (Jesus' commands are easy, His yoke is light), but
> FELLOWSHIP with Him is something I enjoy greatly!
Knowledge of Christ is an important predecessor to keeping the
commandments. To say that they do not matter seems to be illogical.
To keep the commandments is a sign of our love for Christ (John 14:15).
At the conclusion of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount he likened those who
heard his word and then abided by them to a man who is wise (Matthew
7:24). I do not believe that we may truly enjoy the fellowship of
Christ without doing what he would do.
> >> > However, in Galatians 5 the
> >> >fruits of the Spirit are listed as nothing but feelings.
> >>
> >> They are more than feelings; they are continuous states of mind.
> >>
> >> You may be at peace for a moment, but the peace spoken of there lasts
> >> longer than the moment. For my wife and me it has lasted 32+ years so
> >> far. Same with our joy, our longsuffering, and all of the rest.
> >
> >Suppose that I experience a feeling of peace and/or joy while reading
> >and meditating upon the words of the Bible. This would be the Spirit
> >of God. I would hope that there would be no argument there.
>
> None at all.
>
> >But then
> >suppose that I experience the exact same feelings, or state of mind
> >while reading and meditating upon the words of the Book of Mormon? Do
> >I discount such feelings because they have not been experienced by
> >every other person in the world? Or do I put my faith that both contain
> >the gospel of Jesus Christ and both fall into the category of scripture
> >that has been explained in Timothy?
>
> You can get the same feelings from reading the writings of Ghandi, or
> Mother Theresa, or many others. You can get the same feelings from
> watching a "Hallmark commercial" on television or watching a
> television show in which a little boy becomes a hero.
So you contradict yourself by saying that you may enjoy the fruits of
the Spirit when reading the Bible, but that the same fruits, when
manifested by way of another medium, are no longer the Spirit. Gandhi
may well have been enlightened enough to have spoken a measure of the
truth; so also might have Mother Theresa. Truth is not independently
owned in the Bible, but by the grace of God may be manifested in the
words and deeds of others who, knowingly or otherwise, are in
accordance with eternally true principles.
<snip>
I am sorry for any lack of clarity in what I wrote. I do not deny that
it was while Christ was walking with the apostles that they experienced
the burning in their hearts. They experienced whatever it was that
they felt as he communicated scriptural truth to them. Why would they
become excited if it were not because of the truth which was being
spoken?
<snip to>
> Feelings do NOT require truth to exist. Excitement over a sermon at
> church camp does NOT mean the person became a Christian at all. It
> may just mean that he was excited.
Feelings may not be dependent upon truth; however, I think that the
fruits of the Spirit could not be experienced when you are in
contradiction to the will and word of God. Christ even spoke of two
different kinds of peach which could be experienced and that one was
only available through him (John 14:27). Somehow we must be able to
discern between the fruits of the Spirit and the feelings which are the
result of natural bodily processes.
> >> > If the fruits of the spirit
> >> >are feelings, and the very teaching of Christ caused a feeling, then I
> >> >would wonder why the mainstream Christians are so set against putting
> >> >any faith in feelings unless such feelings confirm a truth which they
> >> >wish to deny.
> >>
> >> The Bible NEVER says to base our beliefs of what is True or not on the
> >> basis of feelings. Our judgements are to be based on SCRIPTURE (that
> >> is what SCRIPTURE is for, according to 2 Timothy 3:16).
> >
> >How then are we to know what is scripture? I read your response to
> >Iosepa and if I understand correctly you are stating that the Bible is
> >a compilation of the writings of many different men over the course of
> >1600+ years (forgive me if I am off on the number) and these facts
> >establish the validity of the claims of the Bible to be the word of
> >God.
>
> The number is only an estimate, so it doesn't matter.
> >
> >So if the test is true for one, let us look at the claims of the Book
> >of Mormon. According to LDS belief, it was not written by the hand of
> >Joseph Smith. Rather it was the writing of several different men which
> >spanned a time period from the destruction of the tower of Babel until
> >roughly the fifth century AD.
>
> Smith said so, but NO factual evidence supports him. NOT ONE SHRED of
> archaeological evidence anywhere can be connected to the bom, its
> peoples, places or events. Completely different than with the Bible.
So you require physical evidence as a means of guaging spiritual truth?
> Biblical places existed (we have found most of them, exactly where
> they are supposed to be). Biblical peoples existed (we have writings,
> coins, even libraries from them). Biblical events happened (many of
> the events in the Bible are recorded elsewhere, by people who were not
> believers in Jesus Christ).
>
> NO such evidence is there to support the bom.
>
> NO text to check smith's so-called "translation" against.
> NO other translations to compare.
Perhaps not, but let's say for a moment that any such physical evidence
were removed in support of the Bible? Would you still believe that it
is the word of God? Even without taking away any physical evidence of
the texts, which only prove translational accuracy and not the divinity
of what was originally written, from which the Bible has been
translated how do you surmise that it is truly from God and not just
something made up from the whims of men?
> NOBODY'S word except smith that any such stuff was even ON the plates.
> Nobody's word except smith's that the people, places, or events ever
> existed at all.
On the contrary there are 11 others who say that they have seen the
plates, who handled them, and who were able to examine the characters
upon them.
> NOTHING. The writing of ONE man, smith. No evidence anywhere that
> any other men in the book ever existed.
>
> For the Bible, we have over 5,200 manuscripts from the first few
> centuries, quotations from the NT from others who were there (like
> Polycarp and others) either then or immediately after, etc., and
> things like that.
>
> For the bom. . .NOTHING.
Such is your belief and trust in that which you must be able to verify
by physical means. The Book of Mormon may not have the physical
evidence to support it that the Bible does, but even the Bible does not
say to trust in it because you can visit the locations around which it
is based.
> >
> >In both cases we have a claimed compilation of the writings of several
> >different authors covering a great expanse of time. Both make the
> >claim, how do we know if one is more right than the other?
>
> The Bible is considered the Word of God by both sides of the
> discussion, and there is EVIDENCE that the Bible is an authentic
> collection of writings.
>
> The bom is NOT considered to be the Word of God by both of us, is the
> "new guy on the block" and should therefore be examined IN LIGHT of
> the Bible, and there is NO evidence that the bom is anything more than
> the imaginations of joseph smith.
Except that we have the affirmations of at least 11 which state that
they saw the plates and handled them. There is also the spiritual
confirmation that has been experienced by millions. It just depends on
what evidence you put your trust in.
> Which do YOU want to base the rest of eternity for yourself on?
I will base my eternal salvation upon that which I have found to be
true in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. So also will I base my
salvation upon my beliefs that Joseph was a man chosen and inspired of
God to restore the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> >> That does NOT MEAN that we Christians are against HAVING feelings. We
> >> have love, and we FEEL love. We have compassion and we FEEL
> >> compassion. We do not "decide" what is worthy of either on the basis
> >> of the feeling however, we make those decisions on the basis of
> >> SCRIPTURE, as the Bible teaches us to do.
> >>
> >> 2 Tim 3:16-17
> >> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> >> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> >> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
> >> equipped for every good work.
> >> NKJV
> >
> >So then the only question in my mind would be whether God only gave
> >inspiration to the prophets of the Bible, or whether there were
> >prophets on the American Continent who also received such inspiration
> >and whose compiled works now are found within the Book of Mormon. If
> >he did, then the Christian world is ignoring a very important portion
> >of God's revealed word.
>
> Other than smith's imagination, there is no reason to believe that
> there were prophets on the American continent, in China, or in
> Australia either. You may wonder whether God did such things, but
> unless you have HONEST EVIDENCE that He did, any claim that He did
> would be nothing more than supposition and guessing.
>
> Or in the case of smith, imagining and making up.
I think that even if any other document which did contain the word of
God as given to prophets, the only people who would accept it as such
would be the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.
> >> There is NO place in the Bible that says feelings are for deciding
> >> what is true or false.
> >
> >But the Bible does say in numerous places, particularly in the New
> >Testament to ask, seek, and knock with a promise that if we do so that
> >we shall receive, find, and have things opened to us.
>
> If we seek HIM we will find HIM. That is NOT a formula to determine
> whether something is True or not.
A self-contradicting statement. How do you know if it is truly Him or
not?
> >It also contains
> >a promise in James 1:5-6 that those who ask in faith may receive wisdom
> >from God. Does this wisdom come by hearing an actual voice, seeing a
> >vision, or might it come by the fruits of the Spirit?
>
> Wisdom is NOT the same thing as knowledge. You are comparing apples
> and oranges.
>
> My son has the KNOWLEDGE that smoking causes cancer (he is a cancer
> survivor) but he does not have the WISDOM to stop.
>
> Wisdom is what you DO with your knowledge. True wisdom is knowing
> God's Will AND DOING IT.
Exactly and it was such wisdom that was sought by Joseph Smith on that
spring morning of 1820. He wanted to know which church to join, never
considering that all of them were wrong until he was told that such was
the case. Joseph received knowledge that he was to be an instrument in
God's hand. Through this instrumentality the fullness of the gospel of
Jesus Christ was to be made manifest upon the earth once again. He
then had the wisdom to act in accordance to what he had learned. So it
is with us, we may gain a knowledge of the principles of truth and then
we must then exercise the wisdom needed to actually implement them into
our lives if such knowledge is to be of any benefit.
> When you pray for wisdom, you are led to do what God wants you to do.
> sometimes you learn (receive knowledge) new things, but that.
> Sometimes you are led to use a different tool to obtain the objective
> you were already working towards. Sometimes you see what you already
> had in a more clear light.
>
> Not feelings, but guidance on how to DO what God wants you to do.
How do you know if it is God guiding you and not some other spirit?
There is a diverse range of people all claiming to do the will of God.
How do you know who is truly doing his will or otherwise?
> >John 14:26
> >states that the Holy Ghost shall be sent to us to teach us all things,
> >and to bring all things to our rememberance.
>
> Correct.
And how might we come to know that which we must specifically do? The
Bible has embedded within many principles by which we might govern our
life, but how are we to know how to best implement such principles
unless we are guided by additional light which may be revealed to us by
the power of the Spirit? Just as the Spirit has the power to lend such
guidance, so also does it have the power to guide us to a knowledge of
the truth and the wisdom of how to best apply it.
> >> >I have had such feelings within soul which I can only understand to be
> >> >a confirmation of the divinely sanctioned mission and calling of Joseph
> >> >Smith.
> >>
> >> That is fine, and I have had the same feelings that I can only
> >> understand to be the confirmation of the fact that Joseph Smith was a
> >> false prophet.
> >
> >If the Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead and cannot lie, then it
> >would only seem logical to think that one of us has been deceived.
>
> Exactly true! And we both know there are OTHER spirits out there.
> >
> >> So it behooves BOTH of us to do the following:
> >>
> >> 1 Thess 5:19-22
> >> 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
> >> things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
> >> NKJV
> >>
> >> And HOW do we test? BY SCRIPTURE.
> >
> >Again, there also comes the question as to how we determine what is
> >scripture.
>
> We both KNOW (not just because one single individual says so, but
> because of evidence it is true) that the Bible is from God. You
> believe it, I believe it, and even smith said He beleived the Bible to
> be from God, so we can use the BIBLE as a valid measuring stick.
>
> Doing that, the writings of smith fail; they contradict the Bible and
> each other.
So you maintain. I personally am unaware of any such contradictions
despite my efforts to study both.
> >> We KNOW the Bible is true. I believe it. I think YOU believe it.
> >> Smith said HE believed it.
> >
> >At least we have that in common. I have one question here. Does the
> >Bible contain the entirety of the revealed word of God to mankind from
> >Adam to the present?
>
> I believe it does. If it didn't, at least nothing else that comes
> from God would contradict what He said in it.
>
> Jesus accepted the OT in its entirety. He quoted from the Septuagint
> regularly and called it "the word of God." That covers 2/3 of the
> Bible by itself. If Jesus was satisfied with it, I am too.
And even so it was written by John that even if everything which Christ
did, even the world could not contain the books which could be written
(John 21:25). So what if Christ did visit the American continent
following his ascension to heaven? You reject it only because it seems
to you that the Bible does not say that he did so. In the 10th chapter
of John Christ spoke of other sheep that he must bring into his fold.
>From the language used, it would seem indicative that this was to be
something which he would do personally. Who might these other sheep
be? I believe that among others, the people of ancient America were
included in this and that the record of this visit was recorded and is
now available to all who wish to read it.
<snip>
> >So one of us has found the teachings to be in harmony and the other has
> >found the teachings to be in disagreement or contradiction. Which of
> >us is correct is a debate which has already spanned almost two
> >centuries.
>
> That does not make it any less important that we examine it and come
> to the right conclusion. Our eternal lives depend on it.
Indeed they do. It is my assertion that to align myself with the
teachings of Christ as I have found them to conform both within the
Bible and the Book of Mormon as well as a continuous stream of modern
revelation to prophets in our time is that which God desires of me. If
my assertion is incorrect, then at least I believe that I will be in
good company as there are many others who I enjoy associating with who
share it.
> >> On that basis, I and many other Christians have REJECTED IT, a Godly
> >> thing to do.
> >
> >Now there is a point of divergence for sure, at least so far as you
> >state that it is Godly to reject the Book of Mormon. Though we
> >disagree on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church,
> >I can respect your reasons for rejecting it, for you have taken the
> >time to put it to the test.
>
> In truth, I have tested it with multiple tests. Not only the "burning
> in the bosom" test, but scripture versus the various writings of
> smith's tests, a lot of them.
And my test has been to take the writings of the Book of Mormon, the
Bible, and other of Joseph's writings and taken them before God and
asked if they are correct and accepted by him. My answer has been that
they are all approved of God.
> >Such a test is something that many
> >Christians have not actually taken the time to do, but rather dismiss
> >it wholesale because of the opinions of those to whom they are close,
> >the opinions of their ministers or simply because they have no desire
> >to put forth the effort to seek for themselves.
>
> Usually it falls into the same category as Mary Baker Eddy's "Science
> and Health," Moons "Divine Principle," and other so-called writings
> that come from God. Most Christians are not easily led to read the
> writings of so-called "modern-day-prophets."
>
> Have YOU read (or prayed over) Science & Health, the Divine Principle,
> or the Vedas? If not, then why should you expect most Christians to
> do so with smith's stuff?
Such things have never been presented before me. My faith is also that
if such revelations are to be made that they would be presented through
those who I belive have been called to preside over the church. This
is why I do not follow the claimed prophecies of other participants of
this very newsgroup or otherwise. It is outside of the order that I
believe has been established to defer confusion among the saints.
> I did it because all of my friends were mormons, my co-workers were
> mormons, and because they said I could find out more about God by
> doing so. It was a special circumstance, not something anyone in a
> non-mormon area would normally do.
> >
> >> >They stand together as witnesses from
> >> >two continents as witnesses of the mission and divinity of Jesus
> >> >Christ.
> >>
> >> They CLAIM to do so, but upon closer examination, they do not do so.
> >
> >I would like to think that I have made a pretty good examination of
> >both, especially prior to and during my mission. I would hate to think
> >that I had devoted such a great amount of time and energy into
> >misleading good and honest people.
>
> And yet, ONE of us has to be deceived. I too have led many people,
> and would hate to think I had misled them. I have led more than a few
> away from the mormon church.
>
> So the question still stands. . .is smith's work true or false?
I think that a better question would be to ask whether God was behind
what Joseph did, or otherwise. Did Joseph see what he said he saw that
spring morning in 1820? Was he truly lead to an ancient record which
contained the writings of the word of God to ancient prophets? Did he
truly translate this record by the gift and power of God? Was the
church that was organized truly the true and living church with which
God was well pleased?
The work that I believe in was not Joseph's, but God's. Joseph was
simply a means to an end, but still a powerful means with which God
could perform his work.
> And which of us is deceived?
It may be concluded by others that everything I believe in is a farce
and that I have been blindly led, but that will not deter me from
pursuing the course which I see laid before my feet.
> And what is the GODLY thing to do about it?
The godly thing to do is to peruse the path which he has laid before
you. No other path which I have encountered has had as much sway over
my heart as the one upon which I now stand. Though others may think it
folly to trust my feelings that I am doing what is right, I have
experienced a peace beyond any other by doing what I am doing, and
unless I find something to surpass it I will not be deterred.
I read the post and I found nothing in it which made me believe that
the prophecies were false. They are things that I have heard before
and that I have long since reconciled.
<snip>
> >In order to understand or know the truth of something, must I read and
> >consider every single shred of so called "evidence" that what I hold as
> >truth to be incorrect? To undertake such an endeavor would consume the
> >entirety of the rest of my life and I would still be no closer to
> >coming to a viable conclusion than I was when I began.
>
> There is no question that the the papyrus smith claimed to be his
> source for the book of Abraham is false. Even the LDS church admits
> it is a funeral papyrus. I have never heard a satisfactory
> "explanation" concerning how smith was supposed to have "translated"
> text from it that is not there.
Call for reference on a major church authority which validates this
statement. While what you are talking about may indeed be a funeral
parchment, how do you know that this parchment was the same as Joseph
'claimed' he translated the book of Abraham from? As far as I know it
could have been one of many such parchments that were purchased along
with the mummies which Joseph also purchased.
> It would seem prudent for you to examine the validity of the things
> (apparently the ONLY thing) of substance you can check for validity
> about the writings you are basing your eternal life upon.
>
> I have done hundreds, if not thousands of hours of research concerning
> the authenticity of the Bible, the history of the Bible, the
> historicity of the Bible, the transmissal of the Bible, the
> translation of the Bible, etc. and the evidence is overwhelming that
> the writings are indeed from when and where they claim to be, and are
> accurately kept and translated.
Kept and translated, they may be. Still does all of your study prove
the divinity of their words? How do you find out whether the writings
are indeed the writings of Moses, of Paul, Matthew or any of the others
as were given them from God?
> >There is much that is written in an effort to disprove Christianity.
> >Do you spend the entirety of your time making an effort to go out and
> >read and disprove every single item that has been produced always
> >questioning your own faith, or have you decided to take a stand in your
> >faith in Christianity knowing that there might be a very, very, very
> >extreme chance that you are wrong. I think it very safe to say that
> >you have chosen the latter course and so have I.
>
> Yet you have ONLY ONE document to check, and your own church
> acknowledges that it is a funeral papyrus.
There are the testimonies of 11 others who saw and handled the plates
and who affirmed that the translation was done by the power of God.
There is the promise which is a close echo of what you find in the
epistle of James that if one should ask for wisdom, that they should
receive it. To ask God directly, with the faith and intent required to
receive an answer, the truth of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon
or both is one test which I believe to be utterly infallible.
<snip>
> >I am not offended in the least. Rather I welcome an honest discussion
> >of my beliefs and to hear the viewpoints of others and to reason
> >together to see if we might come to a state of having been mutually
> >benefited by our interaction with one another, though we might begin
> >and end in a state of disagreement. If nothing else we have gained an
> >understanding of *why* the other person takes the stand that they have.
>
> I think we are doing pretty good so far, don't you?
It would appear to be so.
John P
It is condescending.
checker
wrote:
That is because the fruit (there is only ONE, and it includes all of
those things) of the Spirit is NOT mere emotions. Emotions may RESULT
from the fruit of the Spirit, but peace is not an emotion; it is a
state of being. Joy is not an emotion, it is a state of being.
Longsuffering and patience are not an emotion; they are a state of
being.
Not just "feelings" but states of being.
>
>> And how you feel effects what you think and believe. If you are
>> depressed, you might not believe that doing something will be good for
>> you, although if you are happy and excited, you might not doubt it at
>> all!
>> >
>> >To what end are such things given if not to edify and lead one to the
>> >truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
>>
>> Jesus said:
>> John 17:17
>> 17 Sanctify them by Your truth . Your word is truth
>> NKJV
>>
>> His WORD. Not their emotions. Not their feelings. Not their
>> sincerity of belief.
>>
>> God's WORD, the Bible is Truth.
>
>There still has to be a way to know what God's word is by a
>manifestation of the Spirit which will confirm what is truly his and
>what is not.
And if your mr smith didn't have it, he made one up, huh?
God's Word is Truth; and SCRIPTURE is God's Word. Scripture is for
the purposes given below:
>
>> 2 Tim 3:16-17
>> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
>> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
>> righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
>> equipped for every good work.
>> NKJV
>>
>> According to what God spoke through Paul and Jesus, we are to examine
>> things IN LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE, not based upon our own emotions or
>> "feelings." Not on the basis of what you "feel" is true.
>
>Then short of an actual manifestation of God, how do you truly know
>what is scripture and what is not?
We know from previous scripture. The OT told us of Jesus, and Jesus
quoted from it extensively. The NT does not contradict the OT; God
does not contradict Himself.
The early Christians considered the books of the NT to be scripture.
Peter called the writings of Paul, "scriptures."
The word is "evidence." NOT emotions.
But it is also true that the natural man cannot comprehend spiritual
things. So for the natural man, there IS no understanding. Not
emotion, not states of being.
>
>> >It is during the peace of the
>> >early morning when there is little else going on around me that I feel
>> >that I do my best thinking. The joy of service to others and knowing
>> >that I am living a life in harmony with the commandments of God causes
>> >a state of mind when the problems of life do not seem so overwhelming.
>> >Patience and long-suffering are two virtues with which I sometimes
>> >struggle, but I notice that when I do exercise them that there is an
>> >acuity to my focus which does not come at any other time.
>>
>> True with me as well. It is not the commandments of God that matter
>> to me however (Jesus' commands are easy, His yoke is light), but
>> FELLOWSHIP with Him is something I enjoy greatly!
>
>Knowledge of Christ is an important predecessor to keeping the
>commandments. To say that they do not matter seems to be illogical.
Serving, loving, obeying Jesus is the thing that matters. Keeping
rules is not what Jesus is about.
>To keep the commandments is a sign of our love for Christ (John 14:15).
We are commanded to keep his commands (the word is literally
"commands" in the original language Greek, not "commandments" as in
the OT Law).
John 14:12-18
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I
do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I
go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do,
that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything
in My name, I will do it.
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the
Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with
you forever — 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He
dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans;
I will come to you
NKJV
We are to do many other things Jesus did; we walk with Him in the
Light doing the things He did as far as we can. Of course, we cannot
be crucified for the sins of others, so we cannot do ALL He did.
And we are not alone in our doings. We have the Holy Ghost living
within us (See Romans 8:9). HE helps us, guides us, leads us, teaches
us, brings to our remembrance what Jesus did.
Cults tend to leave the Holy Ghost working in individual Christians
out of the mix. They seem to think their LEADERS are the only ones
who truly understand the Bible, truly understand God, understand how
to determine right and wrong. They claim that only their LEADERS have
the "authority" to know. Typical cult behavior, designed to keep
their masses in line, dependent upon their leadership for as much as
possible.
> At the conclusion of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount he likened those who
>heard his word and then abided by them to a man who is wise (Matthew
>7:24). I do not believe that we may truly enjoy the fellowship of
>Christ without doing what he would do.
1 John 1:6-7
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we
lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
NKJV
>
>> >> > However, in Galatians 5 the
>> >> >fruits of the Spirit are listed as nothing but feelings.
>> >>
>> >> They are more than feelings; they are continuous states of mind.
>> >>
>> >> You may be at peace for a moment, but the peace spoken of there lasts
>> >> longer than the moment. For my wife and me it has lasted 32+ years so
>> >> far. Same with our joy, our longsuffering, and all of the rest.
>> >
>> >Suppose that I experience a feeling of peace and/or joy while reading
>> >and meditating upon the words of the Bible. This would be the Spirit
>> >of God. I would hope that there would be no argument there.
>>
>> None at all.
>>
>> >But then
>> >suppose that I experience the exact same feelings, or state of mind
>> >while reading and meditating upon the words of the Book of Mormon? Do
>> >I discount such feelings because they have not been experienced by
>> >every other person in the world? Or do I put my faith that both contain
>> >the gospel of Jesus Christ and both fall into the category of scripture
>> >that has been explained in Timothy?
>>
>> You can get the same feelings from reading the writings of Ghandi, or
>> Mother Theresa, or many others. You can get the same feelings from
>> watching a "Hallmark commercial" on television or watching a
>> television show in which a little boy becomes a hero.
>
>So you contradict yourself by saying that you may enjoy the fruits of
>the Spirit when reading the Bible, but that the same fruits, when
>manifested by way of another medium, are no longer the Spirit.
No, I said I may enjoy good FEELINGS, not fruits. You are
term-switching here.
The Fruit of the Spirit is a long-term state of being, not a momentary
"nice feeling." You may have the fruit of the Spirit in a Nazi
concentration camp where there are NO "nice feelings" and lots of
suffering going on all the time. Fruit is NOT dependent upon
feelings. It is dependent upon faith and love and devotion.
People get excited about a lot of things. You can get excited if you
believe that purchasing that stock in the Billy-Bob Oil Company oil
well will make you a zillionaire, but that does not make the Billy-Bob
Oil Company become a good investment.
Becoming excited is NOT the fruit of the Spirit; it is a transient
emotion, nothing more.
We all get excited over things, some of which are good, others of
which are not so good. But such feelings do NOT require truth in
order to exist.
>
><snip to>
>
>> Feelings do NOT require truth to exist. Excitement over a sermon at
>> church camp does NOT mean the person became a Christian at all. It
>> may just mean that he was excited.
>
>Feelings may not be dependent upon truth; however, I think that the
>fruits of the Spirit could not be experienced when you are in
>contradiction to the will and word of God.
The fruit of the Spirit cannot be experienced when you are
contradiction to the will and word of God, tis true. But satan can
produce counterfeit fruit in you and you may believe it is really the
fruit of the spirit when it is not.
>Christ even spoke of two
>different kinds of peach which could be experienced and that one was
>only available through him (John 14:27). Somehow we must be able to
>discern between the fruits of the Spirit and the feelings which are the
>result of natural bodily processes.
1) The fruit of the Spirit is not mere feelings, as I have
demonstrated above.
2) The fruit of the Spirit lasts, and is not transient at all.
3) The fruit of the Spirit is ALWAYS in agreement with the Bible, the
Word of God. It NEVER contradicts God.
4) In that respect, the fruit of the Spirit is CHECKABLE, can be
TESTED. (See 1 Thess 5:21)
>
>> >> > If the fruits of the spirit
>> >> >are feelings, and the very teaching of Christ caused a feeling, then I
>> >> >would wonder why the mainstream Christians are so set against putting
>> >> >any faith in feelings unless such feelings confirm a truth which they
>> >> >wish to deny.
>> >>
>> >> The Bible NEVER says to base our beliefs of what is True or not on the
>> >> basis of feelings. Our judgements are to be based on SCRIPTURE (that
>> >> is what SCRIPTURE is for, according to 2 Timothy 3:16).
>> >
>> >How then are we to know what is scripture? I read your response to
>> >Iosepa and if I understand correctly you are stating that the Bible is
>> >a compilation of the writings of many different men over the course of
>> >1600+ years (forgive me if I am off on the number) and these facts
>> >establish the validity of the claims of the Bible to be the word of
>> >God.
>>
>> The number is only an estimate, so it doesn't matter.
>> >
>> >So if the test is true for one, let us look at the claims of the Book
>> >of Mormon. According to LDS belief, it was not written by the hand of
>> >Joseph Smith. Rather it was the writing of several different men which
>> >spanned a time period from the destruction of the tower of Babel until
>> >roughly the fifth century AD.
>>
>> Smith said so, but NO factual evidence supports him. NOT ONE SHRED of
>> archaeological evidence anywhere can be connected to the bom, its
>> peoples, places or events. Completely different than with the Bible.
>
>So you require physical evidence as a means of guaging spiritual truth?
No, I merely note that smith has none, and the Bible (which smith
called "the word of God. . .") has all sorts of physical evidence to
SUPPORT it.
>
>> Biblical places existed (we have found most of them, exactly where
>> they are supposed to be). Biblical peoples existed (we have writings,
>> coins, even libraries from them). Biblical events happened (many of
>> the events in the Bible are recorded elsewhere, by people who were not
>> believers in Jesus Christ).
>>
>> NO such evidence is there to support the bom.
>>
>> NO text to check smith's so-called "translation" against.
>> NO other translations to compare.
>
>Perhaps not, but let's say for a moment that any such physical evidence
>were removed in support of the Bible? Would you still believe that it
>is the word of God?
Physical evidence supports the fact that it is not myth or fiction.
People, places, and events really did happen in real life.
"What if" the physical evidence didn't exist? What if pigs could fly?
I don't play hypothetical games; they are meaningless.
>Even without taking away any physical evidence of
>the texts, which only prove translational accuracy and not the divinity
>of what was originally written, from which the Bible has been
>translated how do you surmise that it is truly from God and not just
>something made up from the whims of men?
The Bible says many things that "the whims of men" would NEVER say,
such as the concept that nobody comes to God except through Jesus, and
that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. That
man's heart is evil above all things. Stuff like that.
The internal evidence of the Bible, the fact that it was penned by 39
people of such different backgrounds, over such a long period of time,
all leading towards the same specific end without contradiction, with
prediction after prediction coming true always. Such evidence is very
convincing.
>
>> NOBODY'S word except smith that any such stuff was even ON the plates.
>> Nobody's word except smith's that the people, places, or events ever
>> existed at all.
>
>On the contrary there are 11 others who say that they have seen the
>plates, who handled them, and who were able to examine the characters
>upon them.
And NOT ONE, NOT ONE _SINGLE_ ONE who can verify that these
"characters" had any meaning at all, let alone that they meant what
smith claimed they meant.
ONLY ONE WITNESS. . .joe smith.
>> NOTHING. The writing of ONE man, smith. No evidence anywhere that
>> any other men in the book ever existed.
>>
>> For the Bible, we have over 5,200 manuscripts from the first few
>> centuries, quotations from the NT from others who were there (like
>> Polycarp and others) either then or immediately after, etc., and
>> things like that.
>>
>> For the bom. . .NOTHING.
>
>Such is your belief and trust in that which you must be able to verify
>by physical means.
I have the testimony of at least 12 men who died (most of them
violently) for living out the Truth that they had seen Jesus
themselves, seen the miracles, seen the dead raised, and that the
teachings Jesus gave were the teachings we have.
I have the written letters from such people as Polycarp of Smyrna, the
disciple of the Apostle John while he was on the Isle of Patmos,
reflecting the same things.
I CAN verify by physical means a lot of what is there; it really did
exist.
You CANNOT verify ANYTHING by physical means and you have NOTHING BUT
THE WORD OF JOE SMITH THAT ANY OF IT EVER EXISTED!
> The Book of Mormon may not have the physical
>evidence to support it that the Bible does, but even the Bible does not
>say to trust in it because you can visit the locations around which it
>is based.
No, the Bible says that faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. And
we both agree that the BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD. Even joe smith
admitted that. So anything beyond that has to be measured by the WORD
OF GOD, the BIBLE.
>> >
>> >In both cases we have a claimed compilation of the writings of several
>> >different authors covering a great expanse of time. Both make the
>> >claim, how do we know if one is more right than the other?
>>
>> The Bible is considered the Word of God by both sides of the
>> discussion, and there is EVIDENCE that the Bible is an authentic
>> collection of writings.
>>
>> The bom is NOT considered to be the Word of God by both of us, is the
>> "new guy on the block" and should therefore be examined IN LIGHT of
>> the Bible, and there is NO evidence that the bom is anything more than
>> the imaginations of joseph smith.
>
>Except that we have the affirmations of at least 11 which state that
>they saw the plates and handled them.
But not ONE SINGLE PERSON WHO EVER MADE ANY TRANLATION OTHER THAN JOE
SMITH! NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON who can say those plates had ANYTHING on
them about the subjects covered in the bom.
People saw the funeral papyrus smith had too, and they believed he
"translated" the Book of Abraham from them. Now we all know that he
did not do any such thing!
See de plates? No you don't see the SUBJECT MATTER of the bom.
See de papyrus? No you don't see the SUBJECT MATTER of the Book of
Abraham.
See de prophet? No, I see de FALSE prophet.
>There is also the spiritual
>confirmation that has been experienced by millions. It just depends on
>what evidence you put your trust in.
There are many MORE who have the "spiritual confirmation" that Islam
is God's religion. Why don't you belong to Islam?
>
>> Which do YOU want to base the rest of eternity for yourself on?
>
>I will base my eternal salvation upon that which I have found to be
>true in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. So also will I base my
>salvation upon my beliefs that Joseph was a man chosen and inspired of
>God to restore the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So the fact that the bom CONTRADICTS the Bible, has a different god
than the Bible, a different jesus than the bible, a different
measurement of Truth than the Bible doesn't trouble you?
Then why don't you accept the prophesies of your Strangites, your
fundamentalists, your rlds folks, and the 147+ other "prophets" your
leader smith has spawned? What makes you pick bringham young and HIS
particular group?
What have you done to "disprove" the 150+ "other" mormon sects?
>
>> >> There is NO place in the Bible that says feelings are for deciding
>> >> what is true or false.
>> >
>> >But the Bible does say in numerous places, particularly in the New
>> >Testament to ask, seek, and knock with a promise that if we do so that
>> >we shall receive, find, and have things opened to us.
>>
>> If we seek HIM we will find HIM. That is NOT a formula to determine
>> whether something is True or not.
>
>A self-contradicting statement. How do you know if it is truly Him or
>not?
Not a "self-contradicting statement" at all. We know it is truly Him
because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, which
we agree is the Bible.
Any person who claims to see Christ, but whose "christ" is different
from the Christ of the Bible is a false prophet (like smith, jones, or
moon), and their "christ" is a false Christ.
>
>> >It also contains
>> >a promise in James 1:5-6 that those who ask in faith may receive wisdom
>> >from God. Does this wisdom come by hearing an actual voice, seeing a
>> >vision, or might it come by the fruits of the Spirit?
>>
>> Wisdom is NOT the same thing as knowledge. You are comparing apples
>> and oranges.
>>
>> My son has the KNOWLEDGE that smoking causes cancer (he is a cancer
>> survivor) but he does not have the WISDOM to stop.
>>
>> Wisdom is what you DO with your knowledge. True wisdom is knowing
>> God's Will AND DOING IT.
>
>Exactly and it was such wisdom that was sought by Joseph Smith on that
>spring morning of 1820. He wanted to know which church to join, never
>considering that all of them were wrong until he was told that such was
>the case. Joseph received knowledge that he was to be an instrument in
>God's hand. Through this instrumentality the fullness of the gospel of
>Jesus Christ was to be made manifest upon the earth once again. He
>then had the wisdom to act in accordance to what he had learned.
No, young joey only pretended that these things happened. Either that
or he was suckered by Satan. Either way, what he came up with
contradicts itself all over and contradicts what we KNOW to be the
Word of God, the Bible. So joe's "wisdom" was not wisdom at all.
>So it
>is with us, we may gain a knowledge of the principles of truth and then
>we must then exercise the wisdom needed to actually implement them into
>our lives if such knowledge is to be of any benefit.
Yet you pray for KNOWLEDGE based upon an inaccurate reading of James
1:5 which says we should pray instead for WISDOM. And when corrected,
you merely termswitch and go on.
>
>> When you pray for wisdom, you are led to do what God wants you to do.
>> sometimes you learn (receive knowledge) new things, but that.
>> Sometimes you are led to use a different tool to obtain the objective
>> you were already working towards. Sometimes you see what you already
>> had in a more clear light.
>>
>> Not feelings, but guidance on how to DO what God wants you to do.
>
>How do you know if it is God guiding you and not some other spirit?
By what the SCRIPTURE (the BIBLE) says:
>There is a diverse range of people all claiming to do the will of God.
>How do you know who is truly doing his will or otherwise?
There is indeed such a diverse range of people. We don't take the
word of the people; we go to SCRIPTURE just like the Bereans did.
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work
NKJV
SCRIPTURE is enough to make us complete in God, equipped fully to do
ALL He expects and asks of us.
>> >John 14:26
>> >states that the Holy Ghost shall be sent to us to teach us all things,
>> >and to bring all things to our rememberance.
>>
>> Correct.
>
>And how might we come to know that which we must specifically do? The
>Bible has embedded within many principles by which we might govern our
>life, but how are we to know how to best implement such principles
>unless we are guided by additional light which may be revealed to us by
>the power of the Spirit? Just as the Spirit has the power to lend such
>guidance, so also does it have the power to guide us to a knowledge of
>the truth and the wisdom of how to best apply it.
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly
equipped for every good work
NKJV
We Christians can understand the Scriptures well enough (we are guided
by the Holy Ghost; He lives within each of us) to become "perfected"
or "complete" in Christ Jesus.
No phoney "prophets" required to interpret or mediate for us at all.
Then you have not done your homework.
>
>> >> We KNOW the Bible is true. I believe it. I think YOU believe it.
>> >> Smith said HE believed it.
>> >
>> >At least we have that in common. I have one question here. Does the
>> >Bible contain the entirety of the revealed word of God to mankind from
>> >Adam to the present?
>>
>> I believe it does. If it didn't, at least nothing else that comes
>> from God would contradict what He said in it.
>>
>> Jesus accepted the OT in its entirety. He quoted from the Septuagint
>> regularly and called it "the word of God." That covers 2/3 of the
>> Bible by itself. If Jesus was satisfied with it, I am too.
>
>And even so it was written by John that even if everything which Christ
>did, even the world could not contain the books which could be written
>(John 21:25).
John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they
were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written
NKJV
Yep, if you wanted books that contained every word Jesus ever spoke,
every time He said, "please pass the butter," or every time he wiped
His bottom after going to the bathroom, you could not write that many
books. So what?
That doesn't mean that what smith pretended ever happened, now does
it?
>So what if Christ did visit the American continent
>following his ascension to heaven? You reject it only because it seems
>to you that the Bible does not say that he did so.
No, I reject what smith wrote because what smith wrote contradicts the
Bible, contradicts itself, has no evidence in the real world to
support it, has NOBODY to support the text of is book except smith
himself, and according to the newspapers and encyclopedia accounts of
his day and immediately afterwards, he was a peepstone gazer, fraud,
and thief. There is no Biblical evidence, no physical evidence, no
historical evidence that smith was anything more than a charlitan, and
there is LOTS of Biblical evidence that what smith taught was NOT FROM
GOD AT ALL!
>In the 10th chapter
>of John Christ spoke of other sheep that he must bring into his fold.
John 10:11-16
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the
sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does
not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and
flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The
hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the
sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known
by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and
I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are
not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice;
and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
NKJV
Of course He was speaking to JEWS (a pretty "tight" club) of all of
the NON-JEWS of the world. There is NOT ONE WORD THERE about any
"America" or joey smith. ANY good cultist could claim that about
THEIR group too.
>>From the language used, it would seem indicative that this was to be
>something which he would do personally. Who might these other sheep
>be? I believe that among others, the people of ancient America were
>included in this and that the record of this visit was recorded and is
>now available to all who wish to read it.
You believe that because you have been conned by joe smith, the false
prophet. Perhaps the mooneys believe that of themselves because of
sun myung moon.
>
><snip>
>
>> >So one of us has found the teachings to be in harmony and the other has
>> >found the teachings to be in disagreement or contradiction. Which of
>> >us is correct is a debate which has already spanned almost two
>> >centuries.
>>
>> That does not make it any less important that we examine it and come
>> to the right conclusion. Our eternal lives depend on it.
>
>Indeed they do. It is my assertion that to align myself with the
>teachings of Christ as I have found them to conform both within the
>Bible and the Book of Mormon as well as a continuous stream of modern
>revelation to prophets in our time is that which God desires of me. If
>my assertion is incorrect, then at least I believe that I will be in
>good company as there are many others who I enjoy associating with who
>share it.
Hell will not be empty.
I on the other hand will not only enjoy being amongst other
Christians, but will be with GOD HIMSELF.
Sorry if you follow smith the other way.
>
>> >> On that basis, I and many other Christians have REJECTED IT, a Godly
>> >> thing to do.
>> >
>> >Now there is a point of divergence for sure, at least so far as you
>> >state that it is Godly to reject the Book of Mormon. Though we
>> >disagree on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church,
>> >I can respect your reasons for rejecting it, for you have taken the
>> >time to put it to the test.
>>
>> In truth, I have tested it with multiple tests. Not only the "burning
>> in the bosom" test, but scripture versus the various writings of
>> smith's tests, a lot of them.
>
>And my test has been to take the writings of the Book of Mormon, the
>Bible, and other of Joseph's writings and taken them before God and
>asked if they are correct and accepted by him. My answer has been that
>they are all approved of God.
And my testimony is the opposite about joe smith's writings, when I
took them before God and asked if they are correct and approved by
God.
So the spirit answering YOU contradicted the Holy Spirit Who answered
ME. And the Bible agrees with ME.
There is only ONE GOD ANYWHERE, EVER (Isaiah 43:10)
smith's gods are multiple (pgp, Abraham 4:1ff)
And a bunch of other contradictions.
>
>> >Such a test is something that many
>> >Christians have not actually taken the time to do, but rather dismiss
>> >it wholesale because of the opinions of those to whom they are close,
>> >the opinions of their ministers or simply because they have no desire
>> >to put forth the effort to seek for themselves.
>>
>> Usually it falls into the same category as Mary Baker Eddy's "Science
>> and Health," Moons "Divine Principle," and other so-called writings
>> that come from God. Most Christians are not easily led to read the
>> writings of so-called "modern-day-prophets."
>>
>> Have YOU read (or prayed over) Science & Health, the Divine Principle,
>> or the Vedas? If not, then why should you expect most Christians to
>> do so with smith's stuff?
>
>Such things have never been presented before me.
Now I have presented them to you. Go to your library, get them, read
them through, and pray about each, with an open mind and an open
heart.
I'll betch won't. . .
>My faith is also that
>if such revelations are to be made that they would be presented through
>those who I belive have been called to preside over the church. This
>is why I do not follow the claimed prophecies of other participants of
>this very newsgroup or otherwise. It is outside of the order that I
>believe has been established to defer confusion among the saints.
Let's see now, you believe God revealed the mormon religion to joseph
smith and he called others to reside over the mormon church.
You believe that is true because God revealed these things to the
leaders who reside over the mormon church, which you believe joseph
smith called.
CLASSIC circular reasoning.
>
>> I did it because all of my friends were mormons, my co-workers were
>> mormons, and because they said I could find out more about God by
>> doing so. It was a special circumstance, not something anyone in a
>> non-mormon area would normally do.
>> >
>> >> >They stand together as witnesses from
>> >> >two continents as witnesses of the mission and divinity of Jesus
>> >> >Christ.
>> >>
>> >> They CLAIM to do so, but upon closer examination, they do not do so.
>> >
>> >I would like to think that I have made a pretty good examination of
>> >both, especially prior to and during my mission. I would hate to think
>> >that I had devoted such a great amount of time and energy into
>> >misleading good and honest people.
>>
>> And yet, ONE of us has to be deceived. I too have led many people,
>> and would hate to think I had misled them. I have led more than a few
>> away from the mormon church.
>>
>> So the question still stands. . .is smith's work true or false?
>
>I think that a better question would be to ask whether God was behind
>what Joseph did, or otherwise.
The consumation of what smith did was what he wrote. It either IS of
God or IS NOT of God; either IS true and of God or false and NOT OF
God.
Same thing.
>Did Joseph see what he said he saw that
>spring morning in 1820?
It never claimed to BE God. WAS it? Or was it satan (who is able to
disguise himself as an angel of light)?
Or did smith make it up, tell of it in at least three different sets
of account?
> Was he truly lead to an ancient record which
>contained the writings of the word of God to ancient prophets?
You have nobody's word but smith's about that. He had plates
apparently, but what they SAID (if anything at all) was only reported
by smith himself, and nobody else.
>Did he
>truly translate this record by the gift and power of God?
He obviously blew it when he claimed to "translate" the funeral
papyrus into the book of abraham. The papyrus says no such thing. It
seems that even the mormon church acknowledges that.
>Was the
>church that was organized truly the true and living church with which
>God was well pleased?
Again only smith's word, nobody else's.
>
>The work that I believe in was not Joseph's, but God's. Joseph was
>simply a means to an end, but still a powerful means with which God
>could perform his work.
Muslims believe the same thing about Muhammed.
>
>> And which of us is deceived?
>
>It may be concluded by others that everything I believe in is a farce
>and that I have been blindly led, but that will not deter me from
>pursuing the course which I see laid before my feet.
And let the TRUTH be damned, huh? Don't confuse you with the TRUTH.
>
>> And what is the GODLY thing to do about it?
>
>The godly thing to do is to peruse the path which he has laid before
>you. No other path which I have encountered has had as much sway over
>my heart as the one upon which I now stand. Though others may think it
>folly to trust my feelings that I am doing what is right, I have
>experienced a peace beyond any other by doing what I am doing, and
>unless I find something to surpass it I will not be deterred.
Not by Truth, not by God, not by reality. . .
I am sorry for you. If you could demonstrate IN SCRIPTURE that I am
wrong, I would change. I'm sorry you don't take the same position.
So you believe Jesus came again in 1891? That David Patton went on a
mission after he died? That the US Government has been overthrown?
That treasure was found to bail out smith's religon in Salem, Mass?
That the temple was built by God's church in Zion, Missouri?
You REALLY ARE gullible, aren't you?
>
><snip>
>
>> >In order to understand or know the truth of something, must I read and
>> >consider every single shred of so called "evidence" that what I hold as
>> >truth to be incorrect? To undertake such an endeavor would consume the
>> >entirety of the rest of my life and I would still be no closer to
>> >coming to a viable conclusion than I was when I began.
>>
>> There is no question that the the papyrus smith claimed to be his
>> source for the book of Abraham is false. Even the LDS church admits
>> it is a funeral papyrus. I have never heard a satisfactory
>> "explanation" concerning how smith was supposed to have "translated"
>> text from it that is not there.
>
>Call for reference on a major church authority which validates this
>statement. While what you are talking about may indeed be a funeral
>parchment, how do you know that this parchment was the same as Joseph
>'claimed' he translated the book of Abraham from? As far as I know it
>could have been one of many such parchments that were purchased along
>with the mummies which Joseph also purchased.
Check it out for yourself! Don't just operate on ASSUMPTIONS. . .
>
>> It would seem prudent for you to examine the validity of the things
>> (apparently the ONLY thing) of substance you can check for validity
>> about the writings you are basing your eternal life upon.
>>
>> I have done hundreds, if not thousands of hours of research concerning
>> the authenticity of the Bible, the history of the Bible, the
>> historicity of the Bible, the transmissal of the Bible, the
>> translation of the Bible, etc. and the evidence is overwhelming that
>> the writings are indeed from when and where they claim to be, and are
>> accurately kept and translated.
>
>Kept and translated, they may be. Still does all of your study prove
>the divinity of their words? How do you find out whether the writings
>are indeed the writings of Moses, of Paul, Matthew or any of the others
>as were given them from God?
Multiple witnesses by people who knew them. Paul is attested to by
Peter. Peter is acknowledged by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All
of them and their writings attested to by Polycarp and others.
And then there are the less obvious ways; how the writings agree with
each other even though Paul was not of the original group, the way the
OT writers agree without knowing each other or in some cases even
knowing OF each other.
>
>> >There is much that is written in an effort to disprove Christianity.
>> >Do you spend the entirety of your time making an effort to go out and
>> >read and disprove every single item that has been produced always
>> >questioning your own faith, or have you decided to take a stand in your
>> >faith in Christianity knowing that there might be a very, very, very
>> >extreme chance that you are wrong. I think it very safe to say that
>> >you have chosen the latter course and so have I.
>>
>> Yet you have ONLY ONE document to check, and your own church
>> acknowledges that it is a funeral papyrus.
>
>There are the testimonies of 11 others who saw and handled the plates
>and who affirmed that the translation was done by the power of God.
They have no way of making any honest "affirmation" that the
translation was done by the power of God. There is NOT ONE PERSON who
has ever compared your bom stories with either the original documents
OR copies of them.
>There is the promise which is a close echo of what you find in the
>epistle of James that if one should ask for wisdom, that they should
>receive it.
Not even close. Apples and oranges. Wisdom is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom. Apples and oranges.
>To ask God directly, with the faith and intent required to
>receive an answer, the truth of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon
>or both is one test which I believe to be utterly infallible.
If that were the case, we would not be having this conversation.
Either it would be True and we would agree, or it is FALSE and we
would agree. The FACT, the REALITY is that when I and many others
prayed with the faith and intent to receive an answer, we DID receive
an answer and that answer was a VERY PLAIN "NO! THE bom IS _NOT_ OF
GOD AND JOE SMITH IS A FALSE PROPHET."
So the "test" failed you.
>
><snip>
>
>> >I am not offended in the least. Rather I welcome an honest discussion
>> >of my beliefs and to hear the viewpoints of others and to reason
>> >together to see if we might come to a state of having been mutually
>> >benefited by our interaction with one another, though we might begin
>> >and end in a state of disagreement. If nothing else we have gained an
>> >understanding of *why* the other person takes the stand that they have.
>>
>> I think we are doing pretty good so far, don't you?
>
>It would appear to be so.
Allright!
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
John P
Don in Las Vegas wrote:
> Bro, the LDS Church is a Jim Jones Grape Kool-aid society that just got
> out of hand and the mold grew.
Helen
"John P" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161659677.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> That is because mormons think they are more christian than Christians.
They do don't they?
I met up with an old friend from uni at a wedding, she was studying to
become a Chaplain, and a non denominational one. Had researched the Bible
and other religions..I was telling my TBM mum about it and how I was
impressed by my nursing friends change in career paths. My mother said" Yes,
but she does not understand the Bible as well as the church does"
I was annoyed by this flippant comment that every TBM LDS says, as if they
are programmed to say it ..no matter what age or gender or culture.."We
have the true understanding of The Bible more than any religion"It really
irks me, this smugness, it has no crediablbilty The LDS church does NOT
understand the Bible any more than any other religion does...This friend,
the chaplain, discussed how that the Bible has been so heavily translated
that it is difficult to fully understand and take everything so literally
from it. I totally agreed with her point as I have always thought this my
self ...Especially the OT...
She did state that God gave the world His Beloved son from His bosom to
redeem the world of their sins and it was that simple.
It really should be that simple shouldn't it?
Helen
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:792dnbEniqdoxKfY...@giganews.com...
> Etgel wrote:
>> John Manning wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I was wrong about you, Etgel. You write good stuff when you write like
>>>this.
>>>
>>
>> No, I think you were more "on" when you said I was loony tunes.
>> But thanks anyway darling.
>
>
> Why do you have a different email address?
>
I think b/c She uses her dads address sometimes :Gleans...
>
>> Etgel
>>
Helen
<truth_...@surfy.net> wrote in message
news:1161452524.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> truth_see...@surfy.net wrote:
>
>> John Manning wrote:
>>
>> > Etgel wrote:
>> > > John Manning wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>I was wrong about you, Etgel. You write good stuff when you write
>> > >>like this.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > No, I think you were more "on" when you said I was loony tunes.
>> > > But thanks anyway darling.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why do you have a different email address?
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>>
>> I'm sorry, we moved away from state, and thus ISP provider.
>> New address is et...@rock.com
>> :-)
>> Etgel
>
> Truth_seeker is my mom, I used her computer.
There you go..wow, the whole family post on arm,, I would be totally
wigged out if my mum started posting here.Not that your mum says anything
that would be embarrassing, but my mother is a TBM LDS and would be so out
raged by some of my comments re; the church..
>
Helen
<truth_...@surfy.net> wrote in message
news:1161452756.2...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Etgel wrote:
>
>> John Manning wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I was wrong about you, Etgel. You write good stuff when you write like
>> > this.
>> >
>> No, I think you were more "on" when you said I was loony tunes.
>> But thanks anyway darling.
>
> Etgel, considering the limitations our agreement and you age have
> placed on you
> you needen't be ashamed of what you write, but maybe someday of what
> you don't
> write.
>
> Parental unit "Truth seeker"
>
LOL, vey funny seeing a mum post to her daughter here......
dianaiad
Helen wrote:
> "John P" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161659677.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > That is because mormons think they are more christian than Christians.
>
> They do don't they?
> I met up with an old friend from uni at a wedding, she was studying to
> become a Chaplain, and a non denominational one. Had researched the Bible
> and other religions..I was telling my TBM mum about it and how I was
> impressed by my nursing friends change in career paths. My mother said" Yes,
> but she does not understand the Bible as well as the church does"
> I was annoyed by this flippant comment that every TBM LDS says, as if they
> are programmed to say it ..no matter what age or gender or culture.."We
> have the true understanding of The Bible more than any religion"It really
> irks me, this smugness, it has no crediablbilty The LDS church does NOT
> understand the Bible any more than any other religion does...This friend,
> the chaplain, discussed how that the Bible has been so heavily translated
> that it is difficult to fully understand and take everything so literally
> from it. I totally agreed with her point as I have always thought this my
> self ...Especially the OT...
> She did state that God gave the world His Beloved son from His bosom to
> redeem the world of their sins and it was that simple.
> It really should be that simple shouldn't it?
Helen, of course your Mom said this. If she didn't believe that to be
true, she wouldn't be LDS. She'd be a member of whatever church she DID
think had the most truth.
Just as your friend would say the same thing about her own belief
system. This isn't a fault. In fact, being a member of a belief system
when you think that it does NOT have the truth is called "being a
hypicrite," and is not a good thing.
So how about giving your Mom a break with this?
Why on earth would she BE a member of a church that everybody else
mocks, denigrates and views as cultish if she thought anybody else
could give her the truth? the thing is, Helen, they can't. There is a
great deal of truth out there in other religions, yes, and you won't
hear a Mormon say that there isn't. However, It IS true that we have
the most, and understand the bible better. I believe that. If I did not
believe that, I'd be Catholic or Baptist or Quaker or whatever other
religion I did think taught the most truth.
And there is nothing wrong, or immoral, or unethical, or stupid, about
that.
Helen
<checker @flipper.com> wrote in message
news:ma7lj29qbvgk6e318...@4ax.com...
> On 21 Oct 2006 03:23:00 -0700, "Etgel" <et...@pcisys.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>che...@flipper.com wrote:
>>> On 20 Oct 2006 11:47:52 -0700, "Etgel" <et...@pcisys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I Interject here to observe some things;
>>> >
>>> >You Chec~ dude asked people what we believed.
>>> >Diannaiad answered in the most honest and concise form possible.
>>> >You are not happy, you are not satisfied with the message, you want to
>>> >roast the messanger.
>>> >I posted a direct answer to several of your questions.
>>> >I had the decency to answer several of your questions honestly just as
>>> >you wanted,
>>> >but you, not seeing me as points to score, did not have the decency to
>>> >even thank me for my time.
>>> >You never wanted truth, you want fresh virgin mormon BLOOD.
>>> >Etgel
>>>
>>> referred to as "fresh virgin mormon BLOOD" or anything resembling it.
>>>
>>> Oh well. . .
>>>
>>> in Christ Jesus,
>>> Checker
>>
>>I guess that neither you or diannaiad understand symbolism?
>>This fact places the two of you easily into your respective positions
>>in this matter.
>>
>>In the context of the post "fresh virgin Mormon BLOOD" simply refers to
>>the innocent soul of someone who believes completely and without
>>reservation, a true TBM.
>
> Oh I underwstand the concept. It is the APPLICATION I find humorous.
> "innocent soul?" I doubt it.
Etge is, one actually don't you know how old she is, give her a break!
>>
>>This blindness on your parts causes you to quote scripture entirely out
>>of context.
>>You wouldn't know Jesus in person, because you do not know him in
>>script.
>
> Do you make this stuff up as you go, or is it just that when folks
> disagree with you, you use these two claims as your "pat answer-all?"
>>
>>Is that a Braille keyboard you use, or is your blindness more subtle?
>>You really should stick to the milk subjects like abortion or global
>>warming.
>>And most of all don't quit your day job.
>>
> In other words you cannot support EITHER mormon doctrines OR
> Christianity and have nothing to offer but sarcasm.
>
I think etgel's response was a reasonable one...
.
>
> in the Name of Jesus,
> Checker
Helen
<glea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161550399....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Oct 21, 7:27 pm, "Etgel" <e...@pcisys.com> wrote:
>> chec...@flipper.com wrote:
>> > On 21 Oct 2006 03:23:00 -0700, "Etgel" <e...@pcisys.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >chec...@flipper.com wrote:
>> > >> On 20 Oct 2006 11:47:52 -0700, "Etgel" <e...@pcisys.com>
me for my time.
>>two of you easily into your respective positions
>> > Oh I underwstand the concept. It is the APPLICATION I find humorous.
>> > "innocent soul?" I doubt it.Well Checker if all Mormons are guilty,
>> > then why ask such questions?
>> I believe that Dianaiad is as innocent as it is possible for any human
>> to be.
>> You on the other hand are hideing everything.
>> Checker why not be honest,
>> Why not peel off the wool...
>>
>>
>>
>> > >This blindness on your parts causes you to quote scripture entirely
>> > >out
>> > >of context.
>> > >You wouldn't know Jesus in person, because you do not know him in
>> > >script.
>>
>> > Do you make this stuff up as you go, or is it just that when folks
>> > disagree with you, you use these two claims as your "pat answer-all?"I
>> > am just still abashed that having answered that I believe that Joseph
>> Smith Is a prophet
>> and why, you do not have the ability to respond. Either you agree or
>> you don't.
>> I was under the impression that you opened this thread to have a
>> discussion.
>> You have not discussed in my case. Why... are you afraid.
>> All you can do is shoot down those who believe and do not know why...
>> is that it?
>> I believe, and know why I believe, does that scare you?
>> Didn't you think it was possible?
>>
>>
>>
>> > >Is that a Braille keyboard you use, or is your blindness more subtle?
>> > >You really should stick to the milk subjects like abortion or global
>> > >warming.
>> > >And most of all don't quit your day job.
>>
>> > In other words you cannot support EITHER mormon doctrines OR
>> > Christianity and have nothing to offer but sarcasm.I have stated that I
>> > believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
>> Further i'm sure we are both are aware that Joseph Smith considered
>> Jesus Christ
>> his savior. So how is it you can say I cannot support Either Mormon
>> doctrines or Christianity, when the prior evidence says I support BOTH.
>> It is clowns like you I do not support.
>>
>> Any sarcasm I exhibit here is purely a response to your "Holier than
>> thou"
>> browbeating that is most un-christian.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Go figure.
>>
>> > in the Name of Jesus,
>> > CheckerDo you have any Idea how many people have been killed in that
>> > name.
>> How many beliefs surpressed.
>> I find it very offensive that you would think that such blasphemy would
>> increse
>> the merit of your stature one mite.
>> Etgel
>
> Etgel,
> Stop poking the monkeys with sticks through the bars.
> It is not lady like, regardless of the imbalance of intelligence.
>
> Gleann
>
LOL!! Listen to you dad etgel....A very amusing family with wit ....
Helen
"Eric" <ECrypto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161297037.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> che...@flipper.com wrote:
>> On 15 Oct 2006 17:50:07 -0700, "dianaiad" <dian...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >che...@flipper.com wrote:
>> >> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>> >> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>> >> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
>> >> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>> >> wife?" type questions>
>> >
>> <snipped your link>
>>
>> It wasn't a question of what does the mormon church "officially"
>> teach, but what do YOU believe?
>
> Wouldn't being a member of the church be a pretty clear indication that
> we belive it's "official" teachings?
I was an active member who did not believe it the churches
Official teachings, hence, part of my inactivity, I did not like the idea
that when a person wished to understand my spiritual beliefs that I could
just point them towards the missionaries or church doctrine b/c it /they do
not represent 100% what I believe..
>
Helen
> On 19 Oct 2006 15:30:37 -0700, "Eric" <ECrypto...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>che...@flipper.com wrote:
>>> On 15 Oct 2006 17:50:07 -0700, "dianaiad" <dian...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >che...@flipper.com wrote:
>>> >> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that
>>> >> although
>>> >> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>>> >> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>>> >>
>>> >> So here is your opportunity!!!
>>> >>
>>> >> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
>>> >> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>>> >> emotional feeling)?<snip the rest of "have you stopped beating your
>>> >> wife?" type questions>
>>> >
>>> <snipped your link>
>>>
>>> It wasn't a question of what does the mormon church "officially"
>>> teach, but what do YOU believe?
>>
>>Wouldn't being a member of the church be a pretty clear indication that
>>we belive it's "official" teachings?
>
> agree with," but where there are teachings they do not agree with but
> do not challenge. Mormons are likely no different.
>
> Catholics do not all believe that their priests should not be allowed
> to marry, that women should not be allowed to be priests. I would
> venture to suggest that most American catholics who are of
> child-bearing age eventually practice birth control by the pill and/or
> condoms which their religion "officially" condemns.
>
> So the quesion still stands as reasonable. What do mormons ACTUALLY
> BELIEVE, and especially what do they ACTUALLY CONSIDER IMPORTANT
> amongst the beliefs they hold?
>
> In Christ Jesus,
> Checker
I am an inactive LDS and there is much about church doctrine that unsettles
me..But I do know that most LDS would say to you
"Jesus Christ matters to me, His teachings and his atonement"
That is a fundamental belief of most latter day saints...They do no worship
Joseph Smith ....no matter what you chose to believe about them. But most
born agains are all the same, they hate the LDS so much that they want to
believe that they worship in a totally different manner..Yes, some of our
doctrines are not that pleasant, but no religion is without it's skeletons
in the closet...
Helen
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:19:28 -0600, Iosepa Hawaii Loa
> <ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:45:10 -0600, checker wrote:
>>
>>>>7. In the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings,
>>>>interpretations of tongues and so forth.
>>>
>>> When was the last time YOU saw any of these gifts actually happen in
>>> your congregation? Which ones were there? What happened?
>>
>>The gifts of the Spirit manifest themselves as needed. For example,
>>because most of our congregations are filled with people who speak the
>>same language, the gift of tongues isn't necessary. No, I'm not talking
>>about making the sounds of some language which doesn't exist on earth
>>(such as what happens in certain charismatic churches), but the gift of
>>tongues where a person opens his mouth and an understood (by the
>>recipient) language comes out *OR* where the recipient miraculously
>>understands the speaker's words.
>
> Actually, that is a pretty good answer. So far I have never met an
> American mormon who ever experienced tongues or any of these other
> gifts personally in an American concgregaton where it could be checked
> however. It seems pretty CONVENIENT that all of your members and
> visitors speak English! ;-)
No, he did not say that, there are often interpreters available..
>>
Helen
"Alan B." <alan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160965563.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 15, 5:01 pm, checker @flipper.com wrote:
>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>>
>> So here is your opportunity!!!
>
>
> You speak as though "Mormons" owe you something or that they need to
> answer to you. You speak as though you're in some authoritative
> position to require some kind of accounting from your peon
> subordinates. You speak as though you have some kind of ownership in
> this newsgroup, when in actuality, it was created for "Mormons" to get
> together and discuss whatever--not antagonists to come in, spewing
> patronizing and condescending, regurgitated points that most of us have
> already heard and/or read, and dealt with, quite managebly. But,
> arrogant and hostile jerks like you come along and ruin it. Ever
> notice that only cantankerous and "eye for an eye"-types like myself
Surely you can't believe in an eye for an eye stuff, that i, like, soooo
Old testament..Not New Testament, not really what Christ preached...you
know that....
Helen
> dianaiad wrote:
>>I just wanted to give you a heads
>> up on this, since, trust me, you WILL be corrected by some anti with a
>> "gotcha" complex.
>>
>> Diana
>
> Thank you, Diana. I have no problem admitting I was taking a shot in
> the dark with the presumption. As you said, though, it pretty much is
> irrelevant, with regards to the real point, which is: typical 'born
> again's are just as arrogant, prideful, condescending and hard-hearted
> as were Pharisees and Saducees, if not, moreso.
>
> Jesus simply did not treat others the way many of these self-righteous
> bigots treat those with whom they disagree. Jesus was not an
> aggressor. Neither are Mormons, for the most part. 'Born again's
> typically are aggressors. So were Pharisees, Scribes and a host of
> others who frequently persecuted and even killed others for having the
> beliefs that they had.
>
> Hmmmm. Pretty clear to me.
Just take a look at :": Jesus camp:" and you will see how so many American
born agains are like..
>
Helen
<glea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161043285.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan B. wrote:
>> dianaiad wrote:
>> >I just wanted to give you a heads
>> > up on this, since, trust me, you WILL be corrected by some anti with a
>> > "gotcha" complex.
>> >
>> > Diana
>>
>> Thank you, Diana. I have no problem admitting I was taking a shot in
>> the dark with the presumption. As you said, though, it pretty much is
>> irrelevant, with regards to the real point, which is: typical 'born
>> again's are just as arrogant, prideful, condescending and hard-hearted
>> as were Pharisees and Saducees, if not, moreso.
>>
>> Jesus simply did not treat others the way many of these self-righteous
>> bigots treat those with whom they disagree. Jesus was not an
>> aggressor. Neither are Mormons, for the most part. 'Born again's
>> typically are aggressors. So were Pharisees, Scribes and a host of
>> others who frequently persecuted and even killed others for having the
>> beliefs that they had.
>>
>> Hmmmm. Pretty clear to me.
>
> "Our country is never so divided as it is on sunday"
> Any other day we would all be pretty much on the same side of things.
>
True...
Helen
"Don in Las Vegas" <dstr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161720051.5...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ASlan, this person does have freedom of speech. The Mormons do have
> wierd off centered beliefs, and Checker is not alone in distain for the
> trickery that Mormon Missionaries use on people. How often do they
> knock on someones door and tell them that Blacks could not hold the
> Priesthood, and what Brigham Young said as a Prophet about Blacks!! Do
> they discuss Adam/God, or the Celestial Kingdom?? They are part of the
> LDS teachings so why not have them in the discussions?? The reason that
> these deep and dark secrets that the Mormons are trying to scoot away
> from is that if they were to tell the non-member this they would get
> booted out the door!!!
>
Yes, theses are some valid points ...
I did not hear of any of these "beliefs ' or "doctrine" until I had been a
member for a while. The mark of Cain stuff I heard from a very dour
LDS woman who was making no apologies for disliking the local aborigines in
our area..
We are not told this stuff when we join the church, being converted is like
falling in love, you only get to see the good stuff first and then the bad
shit comes out later when you have by that time made a commitment...
Helen
"dianaiad" <dian...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162959322....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I don't think any one really has translated the Bible correctly, not even
the lds faith....
Helen
> On 21 Oct 2006 08:01:43 -0700, "Don in Las Vegas" <dstr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>che...@flipper.com wrote:
>>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>>>
>>> So here is your opportunity!!!
>>>
>>> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>>> emotional feeling)?
>>> in the pgp that Joseph Smith presented, you know, that burial paprus
>>> that had nothing to do with the text of that book?
>>> spouse, and your children? Yourself, your PARENTS and your siblings?
>>> HOW do you think that could possibly work?
>>> accepted sence, as following the TRADITIONAL Jesus Christ?
>>>
>>> between your religion and that of us fundamental Christians.
>>>
>>> be misrepresented.
>>>
>>> We DO reserve the right to ask questions and provide counterpoints,
>>> however.
>>>
>>> in the Name of Jesus,
>>> Checker
>>
>> As having been a Temple Reccommend holder in the Mormon Church,
>>...they are nervous to respond as they are afraid of being drawn into
>>a conversation that will "show their slip", so to speak. They are
>>concerned about "Adam God" Doctrines, "Eternal Progression", the
>>several and conflicting versons of "The First Vision", The belief that
>>was commonly taught in the early days that said that some sins were so
>>blatant and wrong that you had to die yourself so your blood would
>>cover the sin as Jesus Christ blood would not and could not!! There
>>are is fear of discussing the changes in the Temple Ceremony How the
>>Temple Ceremony is so similiar to the Masons Rites that it is obvious
>>to the thinking person that it is not an acidental similarity...Joseph
>>Smith faked it by stealing it from the Masons. ...........
>
> I'm not so sure that most mormons are even aware of these teachings,
> let alone worry about them. I would suspect that the "average" mormon
> is in the dark about these doctrines and do NOT believe them. That is
> why I am asking the question.
>
>> The concernes that they have are huge. Contrary to popular belief,
>>they DO NOT believe in Jesus Christ, period and end of statement. When
>>they say Jesus Christ they are not referring to the same thing you are.
>> It's a bit like someone sayig vegetables, they mean Cabbage, you are
>>thinking carrrots and there is no similarity past the word vegetable.
>
> But do you really believe the "average" mormon even sees the
> differences? I suspect they don't, so I am asking the above question
> to see.
>
>> Mormons know that they are out of line with Christianity. We all
>>know why.
>>
> I'm not certain that most mormons do know that. I suspect that most
> think they ARE Christians (they seem to be being taught that they are
> now). So I asked the question.
>
> Now if I can get straight answers. . .
>
> in Christ Jesus,
> Checker
I answered your question in part, read above somewhere...
Helen
>
> che...@flipper.com wrote:
>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>
> faith, you only need to pay attention to Nancy's drive-by posting to
> know that she's only scouring the internet in an effort to cause panic
> and chaos, but drives off in a cloud of dust when it comes to a
> particularly in depth discussion of any given topic. She is not alone
> in her efforts by any means.
>
> one for you. From what source have you gained a knowledge of LDS
> theology?
>
>>
>> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
>> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>> emotional feeling)?
>
> fruits of the Spirit are listed as nothing but feelings. Jesus Christ
> appeared to two of the apostles following his crucifixion and one said
> to the other, "Did not our hearts burn within us?" In my mind this is
> the two apostles did not recognize him. If the fruits of the spirit
> are feelings, and the very teaching of Christ caused a feeling, then I
> would wonder why the mainstream Christians are so set against putting
> any faith in feelings unless such feelings confirm a truth which they
> wish to deny.
>
Many of them put their feelings out there. Many a born again will place
emphasis on "feelings", at their gatherings they have what looks to the
average punter to be seziures, openly weep and get hysterical and speak in
tongues and all that jazz and say it is the spirit of Jesus. So yeah, they
do get emotional, kind of, in a freaky way..I have attended a few
Evangelical gatherings with my parents in law, they too get awfully
emotional about their beliefs and the holy ghost..
No burning of the bossom or weepy testimonies here, but pretty much
Christians on speed or ecstasy; as they practically have orgasms over the
way their holy ghost makes them feel..And anyone standing next to them who
is privy to their "feelings" it is to the point of embarrassment..
Helen
>>> Mormons in this newsgroup and in others constantly claim that although
>>> we fundamental Christians post direct quotations from your own
>>> religion's writings, that we somehow misrepresent what you believe.
>>
>>If you want to look at one of the greatest misrepresentors of the LDS
>>faith, you only need to pay attention to Nancy's drive-by posting to
>>know that she's only scouring the internet in an effort to cause panic
>>and chaos, but drives off in a cloud of dust when it comes to a
>>particularly in depth discussion of any given topic. She is not alone
>>in her efforts by any means.
>
> only for myself.
>>
>>one for you. From what source have you gained a knowledge of LDS
>>theology?
>
> mostly populated by mormons. All my neighbors except one household
> were mormons, the people I worked with were mormons, and most of my
> friends were mormons, so I was immediatly praised with such things as
> "That's great, why don't you go ALL the way and become a Mormon?!" I
> was given books of mormon, d&cs, pgps, etc in various combinations and
> the missionaries came to my house.
>
> I read the bom, the pgp, and the d&c completely through, praying about
> each, with no purpose other than to please God and serve Him in any
> way He desired. Because I had no family ties to any particular
> religion ((I was raised catholic, but my mother was not-practicing and
> would never have objected to anything I did in that regard), I was
> completely free to worship any way God led.
>
> become a Christian. As a result I had studied my Bible for several
> years (a dozen or more) before becoming a Christian, and I knew the
> text of the Bible.
>
> show if they were true or not, the Holy Spirit showed me contradiction
> after contradiction between smith's books and smith's books, and
> between his books and the Bible. Somewhere in there I met a member of
> the rlds church (I don't remember who; it was too long ago) who gave
> me copies of the first printings of smith's books, and I read them
> too. Same results, but with the added realization that there were
> DIFFERENCES between the original printings and the current printings
> that were significant too.
>
> Since then I have had and still have many mormon friends, have a
> library that includes most of the modern mormon books such as "Mormon
> Doctrine" by Bruce McConkie, "The Great Apostasy" by Talmage, the
> Journal of Discourses, and others. I have read much of what I have,
> but not nearly all (has ANYONE read all of the JofD?).
>>
>>>
>>> Please tell us HERE what you believe in relationship to:
>>> a. How do you "know" Joseph Smith was a prophet (other than an
>>> emotional feeling)?
>>
>>As I understand it, the mainstream Christian movement is highly averse
>>to putting any trust in one's feelings.
>
> body reactions to childbirth, sugar, fear, anger, etc. can all cloud
> the judgement and should not be relied upon to MAKE sound judgements
> on.
>
Sweet checker, you are a man and thus can't really understand.. You can not
equate such base emotions such as fear and anger to child birth. The love
and feelings that a woman experiences at that time is more profound,
dignified and spiritual than the emotions such as anger and fear or a
chemical reaction to sugar. I note you did not include lust there....just
the silly whims a woman may feel long after the fact.. Most women are
making rather sound judgment when they say "This hurts like hell and never
again,"
Later our judgments are clouded by emotions such as love and (and wifely
duties while our husbands and ourselves are "clouded" by lust ) we are silly
enough to go back and have more..babies..to our health's detriment but to
the merit of our families and husbands.
Childbirth never clouded my visions..or grip on reality, in fact , despite
the pain ( like I could happily saw off my leg instead) I have never seen
things so clearly: I was at one with the universe, I was a co creator
.....and I was not on any drugs....
Going by what I have seen on the evangelical born agains, emotions play a
very hefty role in their convictions, never have I seen so many men weep
and loose all dignity while they spoke what appeared to back wards chatter
( in toungues I am told) and others have full on seizures and leap off the
floor in ecstasy....These are all emotions I have personally witnessed, but
felt my self..have NOT felt ....while I was attending a born again
gathering...It was like a bunch of Christians on speed..it was a display of
over the top behavior that I could only attribute to a simple human
trait..Emotions. Not that I am condemning them, if that is a way to worship,
fine by me, but don't say it is not any less emotional of based on feelings
than a quite burning in the bosom. I do not know how else we are to witness
the presence of God if not without our heart, b/c all the logic and in the
world can not reason Him into existence.Faith is an emotion....
Paul's conversion itself was not without some element of "feeling"...
>
dianaiad
Absolutely correctly? No. They haven't. But you've been a Mormon long
enought to know that we were among the very first to SAY that.In fact,
that's one of the things fundamentalist biblical inerrentists are PO'd
at us about, the fact that we come out and SAY, in print and in our
scripture, that we believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it
is translated correctly.
"Interpret" and "translate" are two different terms.
vserg...@yahoo.com
with it? do you think its wrong?? if god had a good reason to command
polygamy what do you think that reason was?? if you dont know, then
how does that make you any diffrent than a radical muslim that blows
himself up because he blindly believes its allahs will??
dianaiad
We believe that sometimes it is what God wants, and He doesn't want it
now.
> are you ok with
> with it?
Me personally? I think that would entirely depend on the wife. I mean,
if she can cook and keep a beautiful house so that I can spend my time
teaching and writing, hey, I'm not averse to it. Problem is, since I'm
a widow the situation doesn't arise.
> do you think its wrong??
It is NOW, yes.
> if god had a good reason to command
> polygamy what do you think that reason was??
What was His reason for commanding it in the OT?
We don't have to know everything that God is thinking. Shoot, how CAN
we know everything that God thinks?
> if you dont know, then
> how does that make you any diffrent than a radical muslim that blows
> himself up because he blindly believes its allahs will??
Oh, I dunno, perhaps the lack of dynamite decorations on our belts?
vserg...@yahoo.com
>We don't have to know everything that God is thinking. Shoot, how CAN
>we know everything that God thinks?
dude this just sounds like some kinda automatic response that you guys
say when you cant explain something. theres alot of things that god
does throughout the bible that we question, but none are really like
polygamy. i mean there was that time he told abraham to kill his son
but he was just testing him. my point is why would god tell you to do
something that you know is wrong? are there any other times that god
says to do things like this in the book of mormon?? any other instance
at all??
think about this, if you were still married to your loving wife and god
commanded you to have more wives how would she feel? how would you
feel? would you actually do it?
dianaiad
vserg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >What was His reason for commanding it in the OT?
> >We don't have to know everything that God is thinking. Shoot, how CAN
> >we know everything that God thinks?
>
> dude
I'm many things. "dude" isn't one of them.
> this just sounds like some kinda automatic response that you guys
> say when you cant explain something.
Ok, you tell me why we, human beings sitting around on the planet, some
of whom STILL think the earth is flat, should know and understand
everything that the deity creator of the universe, does and thinks?
> theres alot of things that god
> does throughout the bible that we question, but none are really like
> polygamy.
Only because you say so.
> i mean there was that time he told abraham to kill his son
> but he was just testing him. my point is why would god tell you to do
> something that you know is wrong?
How do we know it is "wrong?" It obviously was NOT 'wrong" at certain
times of the OT, or else God would have told the prophets to knock it
off.
So you tell me, WHY is polygamy 'wrong?" If the people involved are
happy with it, who are you to say no? Because God said so?
Problem is, there are quite a few times, both in the OT and in the NT,
where God was quite OK with the idea.
> are there any other times that god
> says to do things like this in the book of mormon?? any other instance
> at all??
YOu brought up Abraham...Then there is Nephi and Laban, a few other
times when one group of people were commanded to do one thing (like NOT
go to war) while another group were commanded to do another (like
fight..)
>
> think about this, if you were still married to your loving wife and god
> commanded you to have more wives how would she feel? how would you
> feel? would you actually do it?
I've never been married to a loving wife. I WAS a 'loving wife,' and
I'm still married to him (widow, not divorced...) If I knew that God
commanded this, then I would deal with it, and figure that I would baby
sit her kids while she painted, and she would care for mine while I
wrote.
Might work out just fine, depending.
Nancy
I think that would entirely depend on the wife.
No it doesn't. Joseph Fielding Smith stated, that if the first wife
doesn't give her consent, the 'Law of Sarah" applies
i.e. she has no choice.
1. Joseph Smith jr told his wife Emma, that God would destroy her if
she didn't accept his philandering
2. The "Law of Sarah" is another mormon invention of those guys who
wanted to fool around and where the wife balked at it. There's no such
think in either the OT and especially since Church Age, where Church
leaders are commanded to have only ONE wife.
But than again, Mormons have their own laws, not what the NT taught.
==========
I mean, if she can cook and keep a beautiful house so that I can spend
my time teaching and writing, hey, I'm not averse to it.
There's Diane's answers, just as figured all alone.
========
Problem is, since I'm a widow the situation doesn't arise.
Mormon men married widows, sets of sisters, mothers and daughters and
the wives of other men, so what's the exception for widowhood?
Maybe, if Diane has married her deceased hubby in the Temple? That may
be a propblem for their 'hereafter marriage (which btw is unbiblical as
well)
In Mormonism, men can be sealed 'for time and eternity' to tons of women
even today (after his present wife has died), but not women.
===========
do you think its wrong??
It is NOW, yes.
if god had a good reason to command
polygamy what do you think that reason was??
What was His reason for commanding it in the OT? We don't have to know
God NEVER COMMANDED anyone to have more than one wife, not in the OT,
and actually forbade it in the NT
============
Shoot, how CAN we know everything that God thinks?
No we don't know, except what He already told us, and He told us not to
covet another man's wife, which both, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did
God called that Adultery and Fornication, so we know what God thinks of
that one in the OT AND NT!
BTW. Emma suppose to be destroyed if she resists D & C 132....guess
what? :)
Nancy
about Polygamy.