Joseph Smith the man [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Krusader

March 1st 2006, 06:15 PM

master_mormon

March 1st 2006, 11:51 PM

Normally before befriending some person, we consider his or her character. Are they honest and trustworthy? Would they make a good friend, provide help when needed - someone we could confide in? Are they well thought of in the community and known for their good deeds?

Joseph Smith was told that his name would be spoken of by people for both good and evil. Not only is Joseph Smith often spoken evil against but so has his family. Some people claimed that Joseph and his family were lazy. However this is nothing but falsehood.

"The evidence shows that the Smiths worked extremely hard, clearing tons of rock and about 6,000 trees to begin their farm. Just the fence around it required cutting six or seven thousand 10-foot rails of wood. The Smiths worked in numerous areas to earn money for the farm, while also producing nearly a ton of maple sugar each year. 1830 Manchester Township tax records appraise the family's holdings at the average level per acre for farms in the area, and at a value above all but one of the ten local farms owned by families who signed affidavits claiming the Smith's were "lazy," "indolent" people who appeared to "live without work."

So other than all of this, the Smith's where a bunch of lazy loafers. And we are supposed to take our Anti-Mormon critics seriously. Orlando Saunders who lived nearby and worked with the Smith's stated that "[T]hey have all worked for me many a day; they were very good people. Young Joe (as we called him then)... was a good worker; they all were [T]hey were poor people..." (Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], p. 144)

A number of non-LDS people stated

"He [Joseph Smith] enjoyed doing hard, physical labor, working side by side with my father, Cornelius [P. Lott] hoeing potatos or any kind of work that needed to be done" - Lorraine W. Silcox

"I went into the hayfield with him [Joseph Smith], and he assisted in mowing grass with a scythe, many a day, putting in ten hours good hard work. Very few if any, where his superior in that kind of work" - William H. Walker

He [Joseph Smith] was strong and active, and could build more rods of good fence in one day than most men could do in two...building kitchen fires, carry out ashes, carrying in wood and water, [and] assisting in the care of the children." - Jesse W. Crosby

So Joseph was not lazy. He could outwork easily 95% of the critics who claimed he was. What about other Non-LDS and what they had to say about his character?

Dr. John M. Bernhisel account to Illinois Governor Ford in 1844:

“Having been a boarder in General Smith's family for more than nine months, and having therefore had abundant opportunities of contemplating his character and observing his conduct, I have concluded to give you a few of my ‘impressions’ of him.

General Joseph Smith is naturally a man of strong mental powers, and is possessed of much energy and decision of character, great penetration, and a profound knowledge of human nature. He is a man of calm judgment, enlarged views, and is eminently distinguished by his love of justice. He is kind and obliging, generous and benevolent, sociable and cheerful, and is possessed of a mind of a contemplative and reactive character. He is honest, frank, fearless and independent, and as free from dissimulation as any man to be found.

But it is in the gentle charities of domestic life, as the tender and affectionate husband and parent, the warm and sympathizing friend, that the prominent traits of his character are revealed, and his heart is felt to be keenly alive to the kindest and softest emotions of which human nature is susceptible; and I feel assured that his family and friends formed one of the greatest consolations to him while the vials of wrath were poured upon his head, while his footsteps were pursued by malice and envy, and reproach and slander were strewn in his path, as well as during numerous and cruel persecutions, and severe and protracted sufferings in chains and loathsome prisons, for worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

He is a true lover of his country, and a bright and shining example of integrity and moral excellence in all the relations of life. As a religious teacher, as well as a man, he is greatly beloved by this people. It is almost superfluous to add that the numerous ridiculous and scandalous reports in circulation respecting him have not the least foundation in truth.” History of the Church 6:467)

Non-Mormon Attorney John S. Reed stated in May 1844:

"The first acquaintance I had with Gen. Smith was about the year 1823. He came into my neighborhood, being then about eighteen years of age, and resided there two years; during which time I became intimately acquainted with him. I do know that his character was irreproachable; that he was well known for truth and uprightness; that he moved in the first circles of the
community, and he was often spoken of as a young man of intelligence and good morals, and possessing a mind susceptible of the highest intellectual attainments. I early discovered that his mind was constantly in search of truth, expressing an anxious desire to know the will of God concerning His children here below, often speaking of those things which professed Christians believe in. I have often observed to my best informed friends (those that were free from superstition and bigotry) that I thought Joseph was predestinated by his God from all eternity to be an instrument in the hands of the great Dispenser of all good, to do a great work; what it was I knew not. (History of the Church 1:94 (see footnote))

"Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge go to Manchester New York in late 1830 and question the Smiths' former neighbors. Rigdon gives several of his friends back in Mentor, Ohio "a long detail of his researches after the character of Joseph Smith [in New York]; he declared that even [Joseph's] enemies had nothing to say against his character." (Painesville Telegraph, 15 February 1831)

"Jonathan H. Hale, Martin Harris, Thomas B. Marsh, and David W. Patten "all went on the hill [Cumorah] and offered up our thanks to the Most High God for the record of the Nephites and other blessings. Then went from house to house to inquire the character of Joseph Smith in previous to receiving the book of the plates of Mormon. The answer was that his character was as
good as young men in general." (Autobiography of Aroet Lucious Hale, 1-2, citing the journal of Jonathan H. Hale for 30 May 1835)

"May 3rd [1833] we [i.e Joseph Holbrook and Truman O. Angell] traveled 30 miles and called a number of times, but the people were unwilling to hear of Mormonism. We took dinner in the town of Manchester where the Book of Mormon was found. The gentleman did not believe that Joseph Smith was the author of said book as he was well acquainted with him and did not
know any harm of him until the Book of Mormon came forth, but he believed the Smith family were honest, industrious farmers." (Autobiography of Joseph Holbrook, 27)

abrobins

March 2nd 2006, 08:24 AM

Hey Cru, do you have any references for those quotes?

Krusader

March 2nd 2006, 11:41 AM

Hey Cru, do you have any references for those quotes?

Yes I do, as follows:

"God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it you must lump it." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Fielding, p. 363

I am a lawyer; I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies." History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 289

"Don't employ lawyers, or pay them money for their knowledge, for I have learned that they don't know anything. I know more than they all." (apparently, however, he didn't know grammar). History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 467

"I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth-diamond truth; and God is my right hand man." History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 78

And the final quote about Smith bragging he is greater than the Lord - let me quote fully:

"If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them....I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, not JESUS ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of JESUS ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." History of the Church, Vol. 6, pg. 408-409.

Incredible as it may seem, Mormons defend this outrageous bragging. A month later, as he was sought by authorities on various charges, he and his brother fled from Nauvoo and crossed the river. Emma Smith pleaded with her husband to come back and be a shepherd to his people. I suppose his boast that "I shall always beat them," had been forgotten by this would-be prophet, who also boasted, "No man can learn you more than what I have told you," Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 614.

master_mormon

March 2nd 2006, 12:47 PM

[QUOTE=Crusader]Yes I do, as follows:

"Don't employ lawyers, or pay them money for their knowledge, for I have learned that they don't know anything. I know more than they all." (apparently, however, he didn't know grammar). History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 467

QUOTE]

Apparently you don't know that Joseph Smith DID NOT write History of the Church. So if there is bad grammar here, it would not be Joseph's fault.

master_mormon

March 2nd 2006, 12:57 PM

Yes I do, as follows:

And the final quote about Smith bragging he is greater than the Lord - let me quote fully:

"If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them....I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, not JESUS ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of JESUS ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." History of the Church, Vol. 6, pg. 408-409.

Incredible as it may seem, Mormons defend this outrageous bragging. A month later, as he was sought by authorities on various charges, he and his brother fled from Nauvoo and crossed the river. Emma Smith pleaded with her husband to come back and be a shepherd to his people. I suppose his boast that "I shall always beat them," had been forgotten by this would-be prophet, who also boasted, "No man can learn you more than what I have told you," Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 614.

Apparently you don't know the inspiration of Joseph's bragging. It was Paul.

"Address of the Prophet-His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo. President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. 2 Corinthians.

'My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted…God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil-all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl!' " (History of the Church, Vol.6, p. 408-09)

This is from a second or third hand source so it is most likely not word for word accurate. Assuming it is its still not a huge problem.

Point 1: Joseph Smith is addressing his comments to a group of apostates or dissenters and he uses Paul as his justification for what he is going to say. He referred specifically to 2 Corinthians 11 where Paul does some boasting. Paul uses some very important words that should be also applied to Joseph Smith and what he is going to do.

In verse 1 it states: "WOULD to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me." Joseph, like Paul is asking that people would bear with him in his "folly".

Then in verses 16-18: "I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also." Joseph, like Paul, is going to boast like Paul and Joseph is not going to speak after the Lord but like Paul is going to glory after the flesh.

Then in verses 22-23; 32-33: "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft... In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands." Paul boasts of things that he did. Joseph Smith is using Paul's example for what he is going to do. Paul is inspiring Joseph Smith to make the comments he is going to make.

So if one is going to bash Joseph Smith for what he says and the manner of what he says, they need to bash Paul for inspiring Joseph Smith to say what he said.

Point 2. Joseph does not say that he is greater than Jesus nor that he did more important works than Jesus. He singles out one issue about keeping the church together but is that more important than the Atonement of Christ and other things that Christ did? Obviously not.

Point 3. Even if it was wrong for Joseph Smith to boast, it would be no more wrong than Noah being drunk (Gen 9:20-21), Moses having some pride (Num 20:7-13; Deut 32:48-52), or as stated Paul making some boasting or prideful remarks in 2 Corinth 11:22? Many other examples could be made but none of these Biblical prophets lost their callings to be Prophets to God because their actions. Prophets are human and make mistakes and an occasional remark by a person that might be considered prideful or some other act defines that person. How many times have you made remarks in your life that may have been a little off the mark or a little prideful. On needs to look at the entire life of a person, and not define a person by an idle statement here or their throughout their lives.

Conclusion: Why should someone complain about Joseph "boasting" when it was Paul who ultimately gave Joseph the inspiration to boast? At least be consistent and reject Paul as well as Joseph.

Krusader

March 2nd 2006, 01:26 PM

master_mormon

March 2nd 2006, 02:56 PM

Krusader

March 2nd 2006, 03:09 PM

Hey man, don't blame Joseph. Blame Paul for inspiring Joseph. Joseph was simply following the example of Paul.

To compare the Apostle Paul to Joseph Smith is simply like comparing apples to rotten oranges. And, you know who I think was rotten. Joseph Smith was a self-serving false prophet who claimed he was greater than Jesus - did Paul ever make such a blasphemous statement? Paul died for the Gospel of Christ; Smith died because he destroyed a printing press.

master_mormon

March 2nd 2006, 03:14 PM

As I've stated before, Mormons defend these outrageous claims of Smith, and elevate this braggart to the highest position. They teach that one cannot enter the Celestial Heaven without the okay of Smith (Brigham Young their Second "prophet" said this). Thus, in actuality, the passport of Smith to Celestial Heaven and exaltation trumps the Blood of Jesus in Mormonland.

Now as to this issue.

One can't read a person's statement in a vacuum but they must read things in the broader context of what the author is saying. This means one has to
look at issues not stated in the direct quote at hand.

1. Jesus is the ultimate judge and authority over the church and salvation. He is the center of everything.

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (Joseph Smith "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" p. 121)

Helaman 5:9 "...remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ." (See also John 5:22, 27; Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:12; 1 Nephi 15:32-33; Alma 11:41; D&C 76:68)

2. Christ has given some authority to author to be judges.

Matthew 19:27-28 "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Luke 22:29-30 "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Revelations 20:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

1 Corinthians 6:1-3 “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?”

1 Nephi 12:8-10 "And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the twelve [Nephite] disciples of the Lamb, who are chosen to minister unto thy seed. And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the twelve apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed [referring to the 12 apostles chosen among the Nephite nation] shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel. And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they [referring to the 12 apostles among the Nephites] are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood."

If other judges exist, these judges must have some authority over something. These judges are not just for show or a bunch of actors but have real authority and the decisions they make have real consequence. These judges are clearly subordinate to Christ and work on Christ's behalf so we can call them "lesser" judges but they still are judges. Our legal system has judges of different ranks and it seems that a similar system will exist in heaven where Christ plays the role of the "supreme court" in this instance.

Prophets/Apostles (whether ancient or modern) are called to be judges both here in mortality and may be called as such in the next world. Prophets and Apostles have the mantle of Jesus with them so to accept them is consider the same as Jesus and the Father personally. To reject God's prophets are the same to reject the Father and Son

John 13:20 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (see also Matthew 10:40; Luke 9:48; D&C 39:5; D&C 84:36-38, 89; 99:2; 112:20)

Luke 10:16 "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Jesus has ultimate authority over all His prophets.

"Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom-the Only Begotten of the Father according to the flesh, and holds the keys over all this world." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 323)

With is background lets get to what Brigham said:

"Much has been said about the power of the Latter-day Saints. Is it the people called Latter-day Saints that have this power, or is it the Priesthood? It is the Priesthood; and if they live according to that Priesthood, they can commence their work here and gain many victories, and be prepared to receive glory, immortality, and eternal life, that when they go into the spirit-world, their work will far surpass that of any other man or being that has not been blessed with the keys of the Priesthood here.

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them-something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them-namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are-I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation-the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a
being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim-"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true."

I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.

Should not this thought comfort all people? They will, by-and-by, be a thousand times more thankful for such a man as Joseph Smith, junior, than it is possible for them to be for any earthly good whatever. It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption [of Christ]. You will be thankful, every one of you, that Joseph Smith, junior, was ordained to this great calling before the worlds were.” (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, 7:288-90)

We see clearly that 1) Joseph acts under the directions of the Son of God or Jesus Christ. He has been appointed a lower judge to make judgments. Also Joseph acts as a lower judge only over those in this last dispensation. If someone was born 2500 years ago then they would not be in this last dispensation so Joseph will will not be giving any "consent" in regards to those people.

You said "Thus, in actuality, the passport of Smith to Celestial Heaven and exaltation trumps the Blood of Jesus in Mormonland." but in reality Joseph Smith's position by what Brigham said is "under the directions of the Son of God" and Joseph does not trump the blood of Jesus but he works to bring the salvation of man "through the redemption [of Christ]." Not only did you not hit to target, you missed the wall the target was hanging on

Krusader

March 2nd 2006, 05:33 PM

master_mormon

March 2nd 2006, 06:01 PM

Master Mormon, please don't quote the Book of Mormon to me since it contains none - NONE - of the unique doctrines of Mormonism, such as polygamy, exaltation to godhood, and the need for Smith's passport to get into the Celestial Kingdom. Mormonism has so many documents and supposed revelations to pick and choose from, and so many prophets who have contradicted one another. If you want to believe that you need Joseph Smith's say so and a secret handshake to get into the highest kingdom of God, you have totally missed the point of Christianity.

Christianity vs. Mormonism 'Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' (John 14.6) VS:

'No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are.' (Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7: p. 289.)

So, choose whom you will trust with your salvation - Jesus who died and rose again for your salvation or Joseph Smith who died for ordering the destruction of a printing press.

LOL. Does the Book of Mormon contain all the doctrines of the LDS faith? Nope and it has been never claimed that it does. IN fact the Book of Mormon makes that declaration itself.

"And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people; But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people. And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken. And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people." (3 Ne. 26:6-11)

The BOM text itself says the greater doctrines are withheld and will be given to those who first believe and understand the lesser things. THe Book of Mormon centers on the lesser things.

So you then believe that the following doctrines from the Book of Mormon are not unique Mormon doctrines but doctrines that all christians accept:

Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy. (2 Nephi 2:25)

If there were no resurrection our spirits would be shut out from the presence of God. (2 Nephi 9:9)

Where there is no law given there is no punishment. (2 Nephi 9:25)

The blood of Christ atones for the sins of those who have died not knowing the will of God or sinned ignorantly. (Mosiah 3:11)

The Lord still works by revelation. (3 Nephi 29:6)

America is the choice land and those who possess it shall be free if they serve Jesus Christ. (Ether 2:10,12)

The premortal Jesus had a spirit body that looked like his mortal body. (Ether 3:3-15)

America is the place for the New Jerusalem. (Ether 13:3-6)

Little children are alive in Christ and need no repentance or baptism. (Moroni 8:11-12)

If you believe theres are not unique Mormon doctrines but are universal in the general christian population--well then that is great. I am glad you believe that America is the place for the New Jerusalem.

I already explained the statement by Brigham Young above and there is no need to go any further on it. LDS including Brigham Young agree with John 14:6. A few more quotes more from the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 25:20 "…Yea, behold, I say unto you, that as these things are true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven, save it be this Jesus Christ of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved…"

Mosiah 3:8-9 "…And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things, from the
beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men, even
through faith, on his name…"

Alma 5:48 "…And I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come; yea, the Son, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace, and
mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world; yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth
on his name…"

Krusader

March 3rd 2006, 02:22 PM

master_mormon

March 6th 2006, 08:12 PM

Yes, that's right the BOM includes none of the strange, esoteric doctrines of Mormonism, which is why it is patently dishonest of Mormon missionaries to distribute that book and ask potential converts to "pray" about it. The answer to prayer converts might get, has nothing to do with the darker side of Mormon doctrine.

This does not make any sense. First how is it dishonest to ask for a potiental convert to pray about the Book of Mormon. Its only asking the people to pray aobut the contents of that book. The Book of Mormon does not claim that contain every doctrine. The LDS Church does not claim it. As a missionary I did not claim it. It would only be dishonest if we made claims where made to that fact right up front but they are never done.

Frankly is it not more dishonest to claim that the Bible is the complete word of God and all that God would ever give to people to the "unsaved" when in fact the Bible does not make such claims and that Christianity for the first several hundred years never made such an assertion? Its it not dishonest to claim that the 27 books the New Testament are complete when it was Athanasius in 367 A.D who was the first to propose such a thing but never tell potiential "christians" that those views where not advocated by Jesus or his apostles but by a 4th century church "father" that was later accepted by most but not all Christians? I think LDS are more honest about the the Book of Mormon is and where it came from than what non-LDS are about the BIble and where it came from and who decided what books would be included.

Finally I don't know why you are so against prayer. If it truely is being dishonest, will not God let the person praying know that? Why is it that non-LDS don't want GOd to answer the questions that people give to GOd in prayer? Why is it that you rather answer for God? It comes down to what the Book of Mormon says that it is the devil that persuades man that they should not pray. The scriptures say that God wants man to pray about everything. God will even answer dumb questions that are honestly and sincerely asked of him.

Krusader

March 7th 2006, 11:43 AM

This does not make any sense. First how is it dishonest to ask for a potiental convert to pray about the Book of Mormon. Its only asking the people to pray aobut the contents of that book. The Book of Mormon does not claim that contain every doctrine. The LDS Church does not claim it. As a missionary I did not claim it. It would only be dishonest if we made claims where made to that fact right up front but they are never done.

Frankly is it not more dishonest to claim that the Bible is the complete word of God and all that God would ever give to people to the "unsaved" when in fact the Bible does not make such claims and that Christianity for the first several hundred years never made such an assertion? Its it not dishonest to claim that the 27 books the New Testament are complete when it was Athanasius in 367 A.D who was the first to propose such a thing but never tell potiential "christians" that those views where not advocated by Jesus or his apostles but by a 4th century church "father" that was later accepted by most but not all Christians? I think LDS are more honest about the the Book of Mormon is and where it came from than what non-LDS are about the BIble and where it came from and who decided what books would be included.

Finally I don't know why you are so against prayer. If it truely is being dishonest, will not God let the person praying know that? Why is it that non-LDS don't want GOd to answer the questions that people give to GOd in prayer? Why is it that you rather answer for God? It comes down to what the Book of Mormon says that it is the devil that persuades man that they should not pray. The scriptures say that God wants man to pray about everything. God will even answer dumb questions that are honestly and sincerely asked of him.

I have spent many, many hours with Mormon missionaries. I have had them in my home for dinner. We have had good relations - however, never once did any of them disclose to me any of the more sinister doctrines of Mormonism until they knew that I was aware of these doctrines. These included:

1. God was once a man and evolved into Deity
2. There are many, many gods - millions of gods
3. Man can become a god, and a woman a goddess
4. Jesus is the biological son of Elohim (in every way)
5. Jesus "attained" godhood in pre-mortality

Mormonism is founded upon deception. Joseph Smith deceived people into believing he had special revelations from God. Mormons deceive people into believing that they worship the same God that Christians worship and have the same Jesus. In actuality, your gods have nothing to do with Christianity, and your Jesus never existed, never visited the American continent, and certainly never "attained" godhood. Your Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer in pre-mortality (something missionaries never mention, as well). There is not once shred of archeological evidence that Nephites or Lamanites ever existed. Where are all those dead bodies and shields and coins?

The greatest deception is the Book of Mormon, which in actuality is closer to evangelical Christianity in its doctrine than to Mormonism. Deception breeds deception - the cycle continues.

A.AngelAnthony

March 7th 2006, 06:30 PM

Joseph Smith was told that his name would be spoken of by people for both good and evil. Not only is Joseph Smith often spoken evil against but so has his family. Some people claimed that Joseph and his family were lazy. However this is nothing but falsehood.

"The evidence shows that the Smiths worked extremely hard, clearing tons of rock and about 6,000 trees to begin their farm. Just the fence around it required cutting six or seven thousand 10-foot rails of wood. The Smiths worked in numerous areas to earn money for the farm, while also producing nearly a ton of maple sugar each year. 1830 Manchester Township tax records appraise the family's holdings at the average level per acre for farms in the area, and at a value above all but one of the ten local farms owned by families who signed affidavits claiming the Smith's were "lazy," "indolent" people who appeared to "live without work."

So other than all of this, the Smith's where a bunch of lazy loafers. And we are supposed to take our Anti-Mormon critics seriously. Orlando Saunders who lived nearby and worked with the Smith's stated that "[T]hey have all worked for me many a day; they were very good people. Young Joe (as we called him then)... was a good worker; they all were [T]hey were poor people..." (Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], p. 144)

A number of non-LDS people stated

"He [Joseph Smith] enjoyed doing hard, physical labor, working side by side with my father, Cornelius [P. Lott] hoeing potatos or any kind of work that needed to be done" - Lorraine W. Silcox

"I went into the hayfield with him [Joseph Smith], and he assisted in mowing grass with a scythe, many a day, putting in ten hours good hard work. Very few if any, where his superior in that kind of work" - William H. Walker

He [Joseph Smith] was strong and active, and could build more rods of good fence in one day than most men could do in two...building kitchen fires, carry out ashes, carrying in wood and water, [and] assisting in the care of the children." - Jesse W. Crosby

So Joseph was not lazy. He could outwork easily 95% of the critics who claimed he was. What about other Non-LDS and what they had to say about his character?

Dr. John M. Bernhisel account to Illinois Governor Ford in 1844:

“Having been a boarder in General Smith's family for more than nine months, and having therefore had abundant opportunities of contemplating his character and observing his conduct, I have concluded to give you a few of my ‘impressions’ of him.

General Joseph Smith is naturally a man of strong mental powers, and is possessed of much energy and decision of character, great penetration, and a profound knowledge of human nature. He is a man of calm judgment, enlarged views, and is eminently distinguished by his love of justice. He is kind and obliging, generous and benevolent, sociable and cheerful, and is possessed of a mind of a contemplative and reactive character. He is honest, frank, fearless and independent, and as free from dissimulation as any man to be found.

But it is in the gentle charities of domestic life, as the tender and affectionate husband and parent, the warm and sympathizing friend, that the prominent traits of his character are revealed, and his heart is felt to be keenly alive to the kindest and softest emotions of which human nature is susceptible; and I feel assured that his family and friends formed one of the greatest consolations to him while the vials of wrath were poured upon his head, while his footsteps were pursued by malice and envy, and reproach and slander were strewn in his path, as well as during numerous and cruel persecutions, and severe and protracted sufferings in chains and loathsome prisons, for worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

He is a true lover of his country, and a bright and shining example of integrity and moral excellence in all the relations of life. As a religious teacher, as well as a man, he is greatly beloved by this people. It is almost superfluous to add that the numerous ridiculous and scandalous reports in circulation respecting him have not the least foundation in truth.” History of the Church 6:467)

Non-Mormon Attorney John S. Reed stated in May 1844:

"The first acquaintance I had with Gen. Smith was about the year 1823. He came into my neighborhood, being then about eighteen years of age, and resided there two years; during which time I became intimately acquainted with him. I do know that his character was irreproachable; that he was well known for truth and uprightness; that he moved in the first circles of the
community, and he was often spoken of as a young man of intelligence and good morals, and possessing a mind susceptible of the highest intellectual attainments. I early discovered that his mind was constantly in search of truth, expressing an anxious desire to know the will of God concerning His children here below, often speaking of those things which professed Christians believe in. I have often observed to my best informed friends (those that were free from superstition and bigotry) that I thought Joseph was predestinated by his God from all eternity to be an instrument in the hands of the great Dispenser of all good, to do a great work; what it was I knew not. (History of the Church 1:94 (see footnote))

"Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge go to Manchester New York in late 1830 and question the Smiths' former neighbors. Rigdon gives several of his friends back in Mentor, Ohio "a long detail of his researches after the character of Joseph Smith [in New York]; he declared that even [Joseph's] enemies had nothing to say against his character." (Painesville Telegraph, 15 February 1831)

"Jonathan H. Hale, Martin Harris, Thomas B. Marsh, and David W. Patten "all went on the hill [Cumorah] and offered up our thanks to the Most High God for the record of the Nephites and other blessings. Then went from house to house to inquire the character of Joseph Smith in previous to receiving the book of the plates of Mormon. The answer was that his character was as
good as young men in general." (Autobiography of Aroet Lucious Hale, 1-2, citing the journal of Jonathan H. Hale for 30 May 1835)

"May 3rd [1833] we [i.e Joseph Holbrook and Truman O. Angell] traveled 30 miles and called a number of times, but the people were unwilling to hear of Mormonism. We took dinner in the town of Manchester where the Book of Mormon was found. The gentleman did not believe that Joseph Smith was the author of said book as he was well acquainted with him and did not
know any harm of him until the Book of Mormon came forth, but he believed the Smith family were honest, industrious farmers." (Autobiography of Joseph Holbrook, 27)
joseph smith was a false prophet and was delusional.

master_mormon

March 7th 2006, 09:08 PM

joseph smith was a false prophet and was delusional.

OH ok.

Krusader

March 9th 2006, 04:55 PM

OH ok.

Of course A.Angel.Anthony is correct - however, shouldn't he provide something supporting his view - like, Smith's claim that he was greater than Jesus, or his healthy appetitie for women which he supported by his "revelations?"

Oldmonk

March 9th 2006, 07:00 PM

I have spent many, many hours with Mormon missionaries. I have had them in my home for dinner. We have had good relations - however, never once did any of them disclose to me any of the more sinister doctrines of Mormonism until they knew that I was aware of these doctrines. These included:

1. God was once a man and evolved into Deity
2. There are many, many gods - millions of gods
3. Man can become a god, and a woman a goddess
4. Jesus is the biological son of Elohim (in every way)
5. Jesus "attained" godhood in pre-mortality

Mormonism is founded upon deception. Joseph Smith deceived people into believing he had special revelations from God. Mormons deceive people into believing that they worship the same God that Christians worship and have the same Jesus. In actuality, your gods have nothing to do with Christianity, and your Jesus never existed, never visited the American continent, and certainly never "attained" godhood. Your Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer in pre-mortality (something missionaries never mention, as well). There is not once shred of archeological evidence that Nephites or Lamanites ever existed. Where are all those dead bodies and shields and coins?

The greatest deception is the Book of Mormon, which in actuality is closer to evangelical Christianity in its doctrine than to Mormonism. Deception breeds deception - the cycle continues.

CRUSADER: You must also add that women do not get to godesshood UNLESS her husband calls her!! You are at the mercy of your husband I am afraid...he may not like your cooking or sewing , he may have so many wives...[something the BOM speaks AGAINST... thus section 13(X) is at odds with the BOM.] that he just simply forgets you.

[ Is that a whip I see in CRUSADERS hands and a GLARE in her eyes... YIKES I am OUT of here!!!LOL :teeth: :blush:

Krusader

March 10th 2006, 01:46 PM

CRUSADER: You must also add that women do not get to godesshood UNLESS her husband calls her!! You are at the mercy of your husband I am afraid...he may not like your cooking or sewing , he may have so many wives...[something the BOM speaks AGAINST... thus section 13(X) is at odds with the BOM.] that he just simply forgets you.

[ Is that a whip I see in CRUSADERS hands and a GLARE in her eyes... YIKES I am OUT of here!!!LOL :teeth: :blush:

Hi, Oldmonk. Here is a true story from a ex-Mormon. Apparently when receiving their endowments in the Temple (I won't get into the ceremony, since I know that is sacred to Mormons), every woman receives the same name - and that is the name that her spouse will use to call her forth on the day of resurrection.

Well, this poor guy forgot his wife's Temple name, and asked his wife what it was. Following instruction, his wife refused to disclose to him anything that went on in the Temple - so the fellow went to the Temple authorities who had to look it up for him.

Whewww! To think he almost couldn't resurrect his wife!

(Funny, I think the Bible teaches that it is Jesus Who will raise us up on the last day - don't you remember that somewhere?)

PaulT

March 10th 2006, 03:50 PM

Cru,

Great story,

Well, this poor guy forgot his wife's Temple name, and asked his wife what it was.

Are you sure his failed memory was an accident?

Paul

Oldmonk

March 11th 2006, 12:30 PM

Cru,

Great story,

Are you sure his failed memory was an accident?

Paul

Hi Paul: You got one you rather forget??!!LOL :blush:

PaulT

March 11th 2006, 01:17 PM

Oldmonk,

Hi Paul: You got one you rather forget??!!LOL

Actually I'm very blessed, it just occurred to me when reading Cru's story there might have been another agenda at work. Memory lapse for convenience has happened before. It seemed to me that perhaps Smith and company had figured a way to 1-up the Pharisees.

Paul

Hitch

March 11th 2006, 09:38 PM

So if Joey wasnt really a prophet how was he able to read Reformed Egptian?

Krusader

March 13th 2006, 04:38 PM

Cru,

Great story,

Are you sure his failed memory was an accident?

Paul

Well, could be that it wasn't - in which case his wife better not be holding her breath on resurrection morning.

Oldmonk

March 15th 2006, 05:45 PM

Oldmonk,

Actually I'm very blessed, it just occurred to me when reading Cru's story there might have been another agenda at work. Memory lapse for convenience has happened before. It seemed to me that perhaps Smith and company had figured a way to 1-up the Pharisees.

Paul

LOL... Your annalysis is probably correct!!! Isn't it very convenient that the doctrine of "plural Marriages" came a little after Joseph's wife found out what was going on??? Of course Joseph would NEVER "PAD" any prophecies that might get him out of hot water would he????

Oldmonk

March 15th 2006, 05:48 PM

So if Joey wasnt really a prophet how was he able to read Reformed Egptian?

Ther answer is quite simple ...He WASN'T. Though JOEY did buy ACTUAL Egyptian papyri his translation was just a bit off!! If you look at the Egyptian book of the dead you may see some familiar hyroglyphs there.

Hitch

March 15th 2006, 08:28 PM

Ther answer is quite simple ...He WASN'T. Though JOEY did buy ACTUAL Egyptian papyri his translation was just a bit off!! If you look at the Egyptian book of the dead you may see some familiar hyroglyphs there.Are you trying to say there's no such thing as 'Reformed Egyptian'?

Oldmonk

March 16th 2006, 10:56 AM

Are you trying to say there's no such thing as 'Reformed Egyptian'?

I am not sure about that.... Just that what JOEY says the Egyptian said is no where near what it ACTUALLY says.

Krusader

March 17th 2006, 05:17 PM

Are you trying to say there's no such thing as 'Reformed Egyptian'?

Please give an example of any archeological discovery verifying that there ever was a language called "reformed Egyptian." Why would Hebrews write in Egyptian anyway? Sacred texts were always written on animal skins from sacrificial animals, and the medium was Hebrew not Egyptian. Smith really did tell tall tales, did he not?

Hitch

March 19th 2006, 02:49 AM

Oldmonk

March 19th 2006, 12:33 PM

Well thats easy enoogh ,,, start a dig in the ruins of any Lamanite city.

HITCH: Could we start in Zerahimlah??? Where are the plains of Zarahimlah by the way??? Have the Mormons actually settled on a site???LOL I am sure of one thing when we start dgging...we will find MUCH dirt!![ Sorry just my WIERD sense of humor]

master_mormon

March 19th 2006, 06:06 PM

Please give an example of any archeological discovery verifying that there ever was a language called "reformed Egyptian." Why would Hebrews write in Egyptian anyway? Sacred texts were always written on animal skins from sacrificial animals, and the medium was Hebrew not Egyptian. Smith really did tell tall tales, did he not?

A. Before one can give an example of "reformed egyptian" one must have an idea of what it is to begin with.

B. Why would not Hebrews write in Egyptian? What makes you think that sacred texts where always written in Hebrew? And if sacred texts always had to be written in Hebrew, what does that have to say about the New Testament texts written in Greek. What does that have to say about the Greek Septuigant which where the Old Testament is written in Greek. What about Aramaic?

C. I don't think is an issue of Joseph telling tall tales but people coming up with nonsense conclusions that based on foundations that don't exist

Krusader

March 21st 2006, 01:10 PM

RussianWolfe

March 21st 2006, 05:23 PM

Again, please provide us with any documentation of a language regarded as "Reformed Egyptian." Also, please provide documentation that the Jews wrote their sacred texts in any language other than Hebrew.

Hint: you will never be able to provide this documentation outside of FARMS fairy tales.

Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters

John A. Tvedtnes, Stephen D. Ricks

Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1996. Pp. 156–63

While from FARMS, the evidence is not. This is just a summary of the evidence available from various sources as cited in footnote 15.

Closer to Lehi's time are Israelite documents from the ninth to sixth centuries B.C., from which we learn that the Israelites adopted the Egyptian hieratic numerals and mingled them with Hebrew text.12 More important, however, are Hebrew and Aramaic texts-languages used by the Jews of Lehi's time-that are written in Egyptian characters. One of these is Papyrus Amherst 63, a document written in Egyptian demotic and dating to the second century B.C.13 The document had, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, been preserved in an earthen jar and was discovered in Thebes, Egypt, during the second half of the nineteenth century. For years, Egyptologists struggled with the text but could make no sense of it. The letters were clear, but they did not form intelligible words. In 1944, Raymond Bowman of the University of Chicago realized that, while the script is Egyptian, the underlying language is Aramaic.14 Bowman managed to translate portions of the text, but it did not become the object of serious study until the 1980s.15 Among the writings included in the religious text is a paganized version of Psalms 20:2-6. Here, then, we have a Bible passage, in its Aramaic translation, written in late Egyptian characters.

Footnote 15:

15. S. P. Vleeming and J. W. Wesselius, "An Aramaic Hymn from the Fourth Century B.C.," Bibliotheca Orientalis 39/5-6 (September-November 1982): 501-9; S. P. Vleeming and J. W. Wesselius, "Betel the Saviour," Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap 28 (1983-84): 110-40; Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner, "A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script," Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (January-March 1983): 261-74; Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims, "You Can't Offer Your Sacrifice and Eat It Too: A Polemical Poem from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43/2 (1984): 89-114; Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims, "Ashurbanipal and Shamash-Shum-Ukin: A Tale of Two Brothers from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script," Revue Biblique 92 (1985): 60-81; Richard C. Steiner, "The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year's Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash," Journal of the American Oriental Society 111/2 (1991): 362-63; and Steiner, "Northwest Semitic Incantations," 191-200; "Bible's Psalm 20 Adapted for Pagan Use," Biblical Archaeology Review 11/1 (January-February 1985): 20-23; Ziony Zebit, "The Common Origin of the Aramicized Prayer to Horus and of Psalm 20," Journal of the American Oriental Society 110/2 (1990): 213-28. See also John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon, " Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 96-97 n. 147.

While not conclusive, this does show that it was not uncommon for the Hebrews to use Egyptian characters to write various records. The fact that a version of Psalm 20 exists written in Egyptian characters using the Hebrew language gives support to the idea that the Hebrews at the very least used this method of recording their thoughts.

Marvin

Oldmonk

March 21st 2006, 05:55 PM

A. Before one can give an example of "reformed egyptian" one must have an idea of what it is to begin with.

B. Why would not Hebrews write in Egyptian? What makes you think that sacred texts where always written in Hebrew? And if sacred texts always had to be written in Hebrew, what does that have to say about the New Testament texts written in Greek. What does that have to say about the Greek Septuigant which where the Old Testament is written in Greek. What about Aramaic?

C. I don't think is an issue of Joseph telling tall tales but people coming up with nonsense conclusions that based on foundations that don't exist

Hello: The Sacred texts have Hebrew AND Aramaic in them. A good section of Daniel is writen in Aramaic which was the language of Babylon. One of the reasons that Aramaic is used is thatIt is Nebuchanezzar who is relating that part of the scriptures and of course used his native language to do so. It must also be noted that the Hebrew letters we are now familiar with are of Aramaic origin. Add this to the fact that the Hebrews were in captivity in Babylon for so long that the common language of the people became Aramaic....just as in the not so distant past Yiddish was the common language of the people until Hebrew was revived...partly by Ebiniezer Ben Yahudah...the father of modern Hebrew.
As for Greek.. Again the rule of Alexander which spead across the Holy Land made Greek the language of the people. Those in Alexandria of course used Greek while those yet in Israel still used Hebrew in the religious things....the priests etc. seen Hebrew as l'shon hakoddesh ( Holy Language). The problem was how were the Jewish community going to read and study scripture from a language they had forgotten? The LXX provided for that. The LXX is of great value to us today because it shows some variations in the Hebrew text[ The LXX was written before the Massortics standardized the text]. Besides the Dead Sea Scrolls the LXX is the oldest witness to scripture we have. The LXX has problems however. We do not know the text to which it derived from....the original LXX was just the TORAH and not the Prophets or Writtings. The best we can do is piece things together from another work we know little to nothing about...Origen's Hexlapla. So these languages are quite understandable given Jewish history. As far as Jewish scripture actually written in Egyptian Hyroglyphs I know nothing of.

Krusader

March 21st 2006, 06:38 PM

Hello Old Monk. Thanks for the point about the Aramaic. I came across a good site providing information on the written Torah and Tanakh of the Jews:

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

I wouldn't ever trust anything from FARMS.

PaulT

March 21st 2006, 07:03 PM

Hello Oldmonk,

[ The LXX was written before the Massortics standardized the text]

Isn't the LXX a translation of the same Hebrew texts the Massortic text was copied from?

Paul

Oldmonk

March 22nd 2006, 08:54 PM

Hello Oldmonk,

Isn't the LXX a translation of the same Hebrew texts the Massortic text was copied from?

Paul

Paul: It seems not. We have very little information to go on here but it is believed that at least some of the differences between the LXX and the Masortic text we have today may indicate an older Hebrew tradition. We have very little in the way of "pedigree" in regards to the actual texts that Origen used in the Hexlapla. From what some have been able to piece together it doesn't seem to match any of the texts we are aware of. We must remember that the LXX was a fairly old text even before Origen's work in trying to correlate the texts. Altough Origen's task may be seen as a nobal notion it may be seen to have actually complicated the whole situation more. I would suggest , if you are interested , reading Sidney Jellicoe's "The Septuagint and Modern Study". I have read through some of it...quite interesting stuff. I hope this helps you :wink:

Oldmonk

March 22nd 2006, 08:56 PM

master_mormon

April 5th 2006, 12:29 AM

Krusader

April 5th 2006, 12:57 PM

Quite with the childish comments like "will never be able to provide this documentation outside of FARMS fairy tales." If FARMS has bad information than demonstrate they are using bad information or are they information is "fairy tales" All you are doing is trying to discredit the messenger when its the message that is most important.

I'm not trying to "discredit" the messenger, Joseph Smith, I am blatantly calling him a liar.

RussianWolfe

April 5th 2006, 04:14 PM

I'm not trying to "discredit" the messenger, Joseph Smith, I am blatantly calling him a liar.

The messenger in this case is FARMS, not Joseph Smith.

Marvin

PS. Shouldn't a Summa Cum Laude be able to understand this?

Krusader

April 5th 2006, 04:34 PM

The messenger in this case is FARMS, not Joseph Smith.

Marvin

PS. Shouldn't a Summa Cum Laude be able to understand this?

I knew what was being said, but I just couldn't resist saying that Smith is the real messenger of a false, deceptive, message. Don't you get that?

As far as FARMS goes, they are right up there with Grimm.

master_mormon

April 12th 2006, 06:43 PM

There are many reasons why I believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. Here is just one more reason I know this to be true. The scriptures state:

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

1 Corinthians 12:7-10 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues..."

The scriptures speak of signs that will come through those who are of God. One of those is the sign of healing or miracles. Many healings occurred
through Joseph Smith. Here is some of the accounts of these events.

"This afternoon I [Joseph] was called, in company with President David Whitmer, to visit Angeline Works. We found her very sick, and so much deranged that she did not recognize her friends and intimate acquaintances. We prayed for her and laid hands on her in the name of Jesus Christ, and commanded her in His name to receive her senses, which were immediately restored. We also prayed that she might be restored to health; and she said she was better." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), p. 328)

In Commerce (later Nauvoo) Illinois the following occurred:

"In consequence of the persecution of the Saints in Missouri, and the exposures to which they were subjected, many of them were taken sick soon after their arrival at Commerce, afterwards called Nauvoo; and as there was but a small number of dwellings for them to occupy, Joseph had filled his house and tent with them, and through constantly attending to their wants, he soon fell sick himself. After being confined to his house several days, and while meditating upon his situation, he had a great desire to attend to the duties of his office. On the morning of the 22nd of July, 1839, he arose from his bed and commenced to administer to the sick in his own house and door-yard, and he commanded them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to arise and be made whole; and the sick were healed upon every side of him.

Many lay sick along the bank of the river: Joseph walked along up to the lower stone house, occupied by Sidney Rigdon, and he healed all the sick that lay in his path. Among the number was Henry G. Sherwood, who was nigh unto death. Joseph stood in the door of his tent and commanded him in the name of Jesus Christ to arise and come out of his tent, and he obeyed him and was healed. Brother Benjamin Brown and his family also lay sick, the former appearing to be in a dying condition. Joseph healed them in the name of the Lord. After healing all that lay sick upon the bank of the river as far as the stone house, he called upon Elder Kimball and some others to accompany him across the river to visit the sick at Montrose. Many of the Saints were living at the old military barracks. Among the number were several of the Twelve.

On his arrival the first house he visited was that occupied by Elder Brigham Young, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, who lay sick. Joseph healed him, then he arose and accompanied the Prophet on his visit to others who were in the same condition. They visited Elder Wilford Woodruff, also Elder Orson Pratt, and John Taylor, all of whom were living in Montrose. They also accompanied him.
The next place they visited was the home of Elijah Fordham, who was supposed to be about breathing his last. When the company entered the room, the Prophet of God walked up to the dying man and took hold of his right hand and spoke to him; but Brother Fordham was unable to speak, his eyes were set in his head like glass, and he seemed entirely unconscious of all around him. Joseph held his hand and looked into his eyes in silence for a length of time. A change in the countenance of Brother Fordham was soon perceptible to all present. His sight returned, and upon Joseph asked him if he knew him, he, in a low whisper, answered 'Yes.' Joseph asked him if he had faith to be healed. He answered, 'I do.' Joseph stood erect, still holding his hand in silence several moments; Then he spoke in a very loud voice, saying, 'Brother Fordham, I command you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to arise from this bed and be made whole.' His voice was like the voice of God, and not of man. It seemed as though the house shook to its very foundations. Brother Fordham arose from his bed, and was immediately made whole. His feet were bound in poultices which he kicked off; then putting on his clothes he ate a bowl of bread and milk and followed the Prophet into the street.

The company next visited Brother Joseph Bates Noble, who lay very sick. He also was healed by the Prophet. By this time the wicked became alarmed and followed the company to Brother Noble's house. After Noble was healed, all kneeled down to pray. Brother Fordham was mouth, and while praying he fell to the floor. The Prophet arose, and on looking around he saw quite a number of unbelievers in the house, whom he ordered out. When the room was cleared of the wicked, Brother Fordham came to and finished his prayer.

After healing the sick in Montrose, all the company followed Joseph to the bank of the river, where he was going to take the boat to return home. While waiting for the boat, a man from the West, who had seen that the sick and dying were healed, asked Joseph if he would not go to his house and heal two of his children who were very sick. They were twins and were three months old. Joseph told the man he could not go, but he would send some one to heal them. He told Elder Woodruff to go with the man and heal his children. At the same time he took from his pocket a silk bandanna handkerchief, and gave to Brother Woodruff, telling him to wipe the faces of the children with it, and they should be healed; and remarked at the same time: 'As long as you keep that handkerchief it shall remain a league between you and me.' Elder Woodruff did as he was commanded, and the children were healed, and he keeps the handkerchief to his day.

There were many sick whom Joseph could not visit, so he counseled the Twelve to go and visit and heal them, and many were healed under their hands. On the day following that upon which the above-described events took place, Joseph sent Elders George A. and Don Carlos Smith up the river to heal the sick. They went up as far as Ebenezer Robinson's-one or two miles-and did as they were commanded, and the sick were healed." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:3-5)

RussianWolfe

April 12th 2006, 08:49 PM

I knew what was being said, but I just couldn't resist saying that Smith is the real messenger of a false, deceptive, message. Don't you get that?

As far as FARMS goes, they are right up there with Grimm.

I see. Since you can't deal with the facts that they present, you have to resort to name calling. I get it. Typical tactic of anti-Mormons when confronted with truths they cannot respond to.

Marvin

Krusader

April 13th 2006, 05:25 PM

I see. Since you can't deal with the facts that they present, you have to resort to name calling. I get it. Typical tactic of anti-Mormons when confronted with truths they cannot respond to.

Marvin

Well, tell me what you think about this Russian Wolfe. Your dear prophet had this to say about Christians - talk about name calling:

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"

Mormons complaining about what Christians have to say is the pot calling the kettle black.

OU812

April 13th 2006, 08:47 PM

Hi, Crusader. We've disagreed with each other before, but I have to agree with you here. :smile:

Well, tell me what you think about this Russian Wolfe. Your dear prophet had this to say about Christians - talk about name calling:

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"

Mormons complaining about what Christians have to say is the pot calling the kettle black.

Yep, that sums it up. But it all makes sense when you remember that according to Mormonism, Jesus didn't know what he was talking about in the Gospel of Matthew when he told Peter that the Gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against the Church. Because in their view, remember, the 'Gates of Hell' apparently did triumph in God's Church, because they profess that the entire Christian Body had "apostasized" soon after the last of the disciples of Jesus had passed on. :thumbd: And then God and His Son waited to fix the problem until 1814 when they spoke to an 14 year-old native of New York........:rofl:

But rest assured, now that I come here agreeing with you, that'll make me "anti-Mormon".....:ahem:

"All non-Mormon Scientists, historians, anthropologists, linguists, textual critics, theologians, Christians, etc. are all anti-Mormons that hate 'the Truth'!! They, along with Lucifer, want to lead us astray by telling us to use our heads, instead of getting all our truth from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price!!!!" :bawl:

- OU812

RussianWolfe

April 14th 2006, 10:29 AM

Yep, that sums it up. But it all makes sense when you remember that according to Mormonism, Jesus didn't know what he was talking about in the Gospel of Matthew when he told Peter that the Gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against the Church. Because in their view, remember, the 'Gates of Hell' apparently did triumph in God's Church, because they profess that the entire Christian Body had "apostasized" soon after the last of the disciples of Jesus had passed on. :thumbd: And then God and His Son waited to fix the problem until 1814 when they spoke to an 14 year-old native of New York........:rofl:

First, it was 1820. Can't you even get the facts straight?

Second, You are miss using the implied scripture.

The 1st century Christian did not think of hell as the dominion of Satan. Hades, not hell, is the place of the dead not Satan. Satan's last stand is here in this life. He has no where else to go. So if the Gates of Hades prevail, they would keep the dead in the land of the dead. Seeing Hades as a place of the devil is a much later development and had nothing to do with 1st century Christian doctrine.

The purpose of a gate is to keep those on the outside, outside, and those on the inside, inside. This is how a gate prevails. To say the least, a gate is a passive device. To attempt to force this scripture mean that the Christian church continues down to today is to twist it beyond its intended meaning. And the resurrection of Christ is the only evidence I need to be able to say that the Gates of Hades have not prevailed. Very early Christian teachings have this gate torn off of its posts by the resurrection of Christ.

Marvin

RussianWolfe

April 14th 2006, 10:33 AM

Well, tell me what you think about this Russian Wolfe. Your dear prophet had this to say about Christians - talk about name calling:

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"

Mormons complaining about what Christians have to say is the pot calling the kettle black.

Is that the best you can do? You have to go back over 150 years to find something?

And let's not forget that you were the one who labelled FARMS as fairytales. This is no ancient accusation, as your quote is, but a modern man, you, labelling a scholarly institution. As I said before, you can't refute the facts, so you have to resort to name calling. Which doesn't do anything for your cause. If you want me to deal with the facts that you present, you have to deal with my facts in an intelligent and respectful manner. If all you can to is call names, then your facts are undermined. If you want respect, you must give respect.

Marvin

OU812

April 16th 2006, 08:33 PM

First, it was 1820. Can't you even get the facts straight?

Oh, my. As if being off by 6 years really makes a difference....................:rofl:

Excuse me then, I'll amend what I said to, "God apparently let His Church 'apostasize', until the year 1820, when he and His Son decided to make a personal call to a 14 year-old boy." Sorry, but your Church's position is still ridiculous.

Second, You are miss using the implied scripture.
The 1st century Christian did not think of hell as the dominion of Satan. Hades, not hell, is the place of the dead not Satan. Satan's last stand is here in this life. He has no where else to go. So if the Gates of Hades prevail, they would keep the dead in the land of the dead. Seeing Hades as a place of the devil is a much later development and had nothing to do with 1st century Christian doctrine.

The purpose of a gate is to keep those on the outside, outside, and those on the inside, inside. This is how a gate prevails. To say the least, a gate is a passive device. To attempt to force this scripture mean that the Christian church continues down to today is to twist it beyond its intended meaning. And the resurrection of Christ is the only evidence I need to be able to say that the Gates of Hades have not prevailed. Very early Christian teachings have this gate torn off of its posts by the resurrection of Christ.

Marvin

Hmmm.....after saying all that, yet you won't recognize that according to your church, the "Gate of Apostasy" DID prevail against God's Church for almost two thousand years....

And I'll aver that Satan has been 'bound' any way, since the Resurrection/Ascension.

After what you offered, proposing to help 'my' exegesis, you've still left your churche's 'exegisis' in the dirt.
Christ basically said that evil things - whether death itself (and the coming martydom of the faithful tends to put light on this matter), 'the grave' (Hades, Sheol) NOR the Devil/Satan, would not be able to prevail against His Church, His Body...................but according to your church, regardless of the Church's immunity to what Jesus spoke of, His Church was not and wouldn't be 'immune' to 2000 years of "apostasy".........:lol: Go figure.

- OU812

OU812

April 16th 2006, 09:39 PM

After what you offered, proposing to help 'my' exegesis, you've still left your churche's 'exegisis' in the dirt.
Christ basically said that evil things - whether death itself (and the coming martydom of the faithful tends to put light on this matter), 'the grave' (Hades, Sheol) NOR the Devil/Satan, would not be able to prevail against His Church, His Body...................but according to your church, regardless of the Church's immunity to what Jesus spoke of, His Church was not and wouldn't be 'immune' to 2000 years of "apostasy".........:lol: Go figure.

I'm sorry, "martyrdom". :smile:

RussianWolfe

April 17th 2006, 10:25 AM

Oh, my. As if being off by 6 years really makes a difference....................:rofl:

Excuse me then, I'll amend what I said to, "God apparently let His Church 'apostasize', until the year 1820, when he and His Son decided to make a personal call to a 14 year-old boy." Sorry, but your Church's position is still ridiculous.

If you don't get the facts right, how can your opinion be right?

Hmmm.....after saying all that, yet you won't recognize that according to your church, the "Gate of Apostasy" DID prevail against God's Church for almost two thousand years....

And I'll aver that Satan has been 'bound' any way, since the Resurrection/Ascension.

After what you offered, proposing to help 'my' exegesis, you've still left your churche's 'exegisis' in the dirt.
Christ basically said that evil things - whether death itself (and the coming martydom of the faithful tends to put light on this matter), 'the grave' (Hades, Sheol) NOR the Devil/Satan, would not be able to prevail against His Church, His Body...................but according to your church, regardless of the Church's immunity to what Jesus spoke of, His Church was not and wouldn't be 'immune' to 2000 years of "apostasy".........:lol: Go figure.

You still don't get it. Your understanding of that verse is contrary to what it meant to the person who wrote it. There was no promise that the church would not fail. In fact there was a parable that pointed out that the people in the church would be led astray. That is the parable of the wheat and the tares. And there were prophecies that the church would not long survive in it pure form after the death of the last apostle. God knew this would happened and the evidence is there if you care to read it. But I doubt if you ever will.

You can't accuse us if wresting with the scriptures and then say that your understanding is perfect. Especially when the evidence is there for anyone to see, if you care to look.

Marvin

OU812

April 17th 2006, 01:49 PM

If you don't get the facts right, how can your opinion be right?

Since my opinion concerns another opinion - that of the Mormon Church - what "facts" there are concerning that opinion, that I don't get "right" or not, don't mean much in the greater scheme of things. :ahem:

You still don't get it. Your understanding of that verse is contrary to what it meant to the person who wrote it.

Try, "who it was written to".

Continuing on..........

There was no promise that the church would not fail. In fact there was a parable that pointed out that the people in the church would be led astray. That is the parable of the wheat and the tares.

Nope, sorry. That's not what that parable means. :no: That parable had always been viewed as refering to individual believers and how they live their faith, or a 'sifting' or separation - like that of the "sheep" vs. "the goats" - that had already taken place within the Apostles' lifetimes, specifically by the time of the Second Temple's destruction by the Romans.

It's not surprising at all that your church, and their 'hermeneutical doctors', are the only group that believes such a thing. It's in the Mormon Church's vested interest that the entire spectrum of Christendom had it "wrong", prior to Joseph Smith.

And there were prophecies that the church would not long survive in it pure form after the death of the last apostle. God knew this would happened and the evidence is there if you care to read it. But I doubt if you ever will.

There were no such "prophecies". Speaking of which, the majority of Jesus's predictions in the NT, were fulfilled in the Apostles' lifetimes.

And I know where the evidence - the real evidence - is, and I've read it, thank you. :smile: Sorry, the Mormon version of God, Jesus, and the Apostles accomplishments were all for nought, according to their take on the two millenia of Christianity. All those wasted "perfected, holy, priesthood of believers" that weren't "restored" on Earth until 1820.....:lol: Any talk of this Mormon gods' 'omniscience' ( "God knew this would happen" ) won't change the fact that he's (or they are) no better than a neglectful parent. Not that the Mormon version exists, anyway.

You can't accuse us if wresting with the scriptures and then say that your understanding is perfect. Especially when the evidence is there for anyone to see, if you care to look.

Marvin

Based on linguistics, contextual hermeneutics, historical ecclesiology/theology, I can accuse you of doing such. :thumb: My understanding doesn't have to be "perfect", in order to do so.

And I'm sorry, but having a "burning in the bosom" isn't a very solid epistemological foundation. Which btw, I know would get brought up sooner or later. That, or "We have the real Priesthood!"...:ahem:

- OU812

RussianWolfe

April 17th 2006, 03:13 PM

Since my opinion concerns another opinion - that of the Mormon Church - what "facts" there are concerning that opinion, that I don't get "right" or not, don't mean much in the greater scheme of things. :ahem:

Do you believe that opinion shoudl be based on fact? If so, then if you have the facts wrong, how can your opinion be any better?

Try, "who it was written to".

It wasn't written to you and it wasn't written by you. It is more important to know who wrote it than who it was written to. To understand what it means you first have to understand who wrote it. And since it was written by a first century apostle, then you have to understand it from that view point and not a modern view point.

Nope, sorry. That's not what that parable means. :no: That parable had always been viewed as refering to individual believers and how they live their faith, or a 'sifting' or separation - like that of the "sheep" vs. "the goats" - that had already taken place within the Apostles' lifetimes, specifically by the time of the Second Temple's destruction by the Romans.

Then how does the command given by the Lord to not pluck out the tares but to wait fits in with this 'individual believer' version? First what does the field represent? What does the wheat represent? What does the tares represent? Who are the workers in the field? And who is the Lord? What does it mean when he says to wait and not pluck out the tares because that will also destroy the wheat? And most important of all, what was the question that was asked, that brought this parable forth?

It's not surprising at all that your church, and their 'hermeneutical doctors', are the only group that believes such a thing. It's in the Mormon Church's vested interest that the entire spectrum of Christendom had it "wrong", prior to Joseph Smith.

And it is in your vested interest that we get it all wrong.

There were no such "prophecies". Speaking of which, the majority of Jesus's predictions in the NT, were fulfilled in the Apostles' lifetimes.

Here's one:

1 NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; is God.

Here's another one:
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
This one is very telling, because it says that Christians shall arise, speaking perverse things, not for the truth but to draw disciples after them. A very good description of the apostasy.

And I know where the evidence - the real evidence - is, and I've read it, thank you. :smile: Sorry, the Mormon version of God, Jesus, and the Apostles accomplishments were all for nought, according to their take on the two millenia of Christianity. All those wasted "perfected, holy, priesthood of believers" that weren't "restored" on Earth until 1820.....:lol: Any talk of this Mormon gods' 'omniscience' ( "God knew this would happen" ) won't change the fact that he's (or they are) no better than a neglectful parent. Not that the Mormon version exists, anyway.

First of all, we don't believe in a 'priesthood of all believers.'

Second, who can say what God has done. First, there is a gap of 400 years between Joseph and Moses. What is the purpose of that? Why did that happen. Then there is a gap of 600 between Malachi and John the Baptist. Again, what is that and why did God allow that to happen? So it is not unusual for God to allow a 2,000 year gap between the Apostles and Joseph Smith. After, from Moses down to John the Baptist, the Jews were the true Church with the only way to salvation. If they can lose it, what makes you think it is any different for the church that was started in the first century? It wasn't God who failed, but the members who rejected the true doctrine that the Apostles taught. Didn't Paul say to Timothy that he was rejected in Asia, which was where most of the members of the church lived at that time? The members in Asia rejected Paul!!! Where do they get off, reject an apostle of Jesus Christ? Do you think you can reject any of the Gospels? If you did, what do you think would happen?

Thirdly, we don't know of all of the dealings of God with the people during the time between the first century and the 19th century. For you to accuse God of being a neglectful parent just because you can't see what is happening sounds like the whinning of a disobedient child. What all the history of the so-called Christian churchs, its intolerances, it tortures of those that disagree, its murders of those who refused, and its persecutions long before the 19th century doesn't sound like the church of a loving God.

Based on linguistics, contextual hermeneutics, historical ecclesiology/theology, I can accuse you of doing such. :thumb: My understanding doesn't have to be "perfect", in order to do so. [/quote[

And I have point out the 'historical' and 'linguistical' context of the Gates of Hades verse, and you refuse to even provide one line of evidence that contradicts it, other than, that is the way it always was. Sorry but you gotta do better than that.

And I'm sorry, but having a "burning in the bosom" isn't a very solid epistemological foundation. Which btw, I know would get brought up sooner or later. That, or "We have the real Priesthood!"...:ahem:

Now you bring a red herring into this. How about sticking to the subject at hand.

Marvin

- OU812

PaulT

April 17th 2006, 08:23 PM

Hello RussianWolfe

Forgive me for butting in, but you said,

And it is in your vested interest that we get it all wrong.

In response to this,

Quote: Originally posted by OU812

“It's not surprising at all that your church, and their 'hermeneutical doctors', are the only group that believes such a thing. It's in the Mormon Church's vested interest that the entire spectrum of Christendom had it "wrong", prior to Joseph Smith.”

It sounds like you are finally acknowledging that the Mormon Church fundamentally changed to core doctrines of the Christian faith. What “vested” interest would there be for God to allow His people to have a false understanding of who He was for close to 2000 years? Have you come to grips with why God would have left His flock with the wrong impression of who He is for so long?

Regards,

Paul

OU812

April 17th 2006, 09:47 PM

Do you believe that opinion shoudl be based on fact? If so, then if you have the facts wrong, how can your opinion be any better?

Sigh.

Let's try this again: If my "opinion", concerning the opinion-masquerading-as-fact of the Mormon Church, has any of the "facts" of the matter wrong, it doesn't change that the position of the Mormons on this particular matter is wrong.

Therefore, since the "apostasy" of Christ's Church is a falsehood, it doesn't matter what year the story says that the "Restoration" of the Church occured; whether it was 1820 or 1976. It's as though your argument goes: "Hey, what year did we, the Mormon Church, say the restoration happened? Oops. I mean, when did the restoration of Christ's Church occur, you heathen? 1820, not 1814! Hah!"

It wasn't written to you and it wasn't written by you. It is more important to know who wrote it than who it was written to. To understand what it means you first have to understand who wrote it. And since it was written by a first century apostle, then you have to understand it from that view point and not a modern view point.

Precisely. And it's that view point (that of the original context) which undercuts the Mormon position on this matter. And there was no claim on my part to say that it was written to me personally.

Then how does the command given by the Lord to not pluck out the tares but to wait fits in with this 'individual believer' version?

It sure doesn't fit in with an "apostasy" of the Church, 'after the last apostle died.'

First what does the field represent?

The world, and His Church.

What does the wheat represent?

The believers.

What does the tares represent?

The unbelievers.

Who are the workers in the field?

Apostles and disciples of Jesus.

And who is the Lord?

Jesus.

What does it mean when he says to wait and not pluck out the tares because that will also destroy the wheat?

Because in their zeal to 'uproot' the unbelievers in the Church, they might remove some of the actual believers, as well.

And most important of all, what was the question that was asked, that brought this parable forth?

The disciples asked Jesus why he spoke to the multitudes in parables. :smile:

And it is in your vested interest that we get it all wrong.

Nah, it's just self-evident that a religion that just came about virtually 'yesterday', isn't going to be too accurate in how to interpret a theological system that's more than 2000 years old, and will get many things wrong. :wink:

Here's one:

1 NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; is God.

Here's another one:
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
This one is very telling, because it says that Christians shall arise, speaking perverse things, not for the truth but to draw disciples after them. A very good description of the apostasy.

That's not speaking of "APOSTASY OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH", just that certain individuals will openly teach heresy, to lead others astray. The Church Body had and still has the power to cast them out.

First of all, we don't believe in a 'priesthood of all believers.'

Yes, we know. A 'priesthood of all believers' isn't very conducive to a elitist, theological system that thrives on gnostic-like 'secret knowledge', 'mysteries', and 'levels of perfection'. :ahem: Therefore, you have your own "priesthood hierarchy" - the Melchezidek and the Aaronic - which make Jesus totally redundant.

Second, who can say what God has done. First, there is a gap of 400 years between Joseph and Moses. What is the purpose of that? Why did that happen. Then there is a gap of 600 between Malachi and John the Baptist. Again, what is that and why did God allow that to happen?

I'm not the one spinning the tall-tales here; that's you and your church that does so. So I don't need to answer your objections to a faith that your church has a hard time grasping.

So it is not unusual for God to allow a 2,000 year gap between the Apostles and Joseph Smith.

Actually it is unusual, since God said that His Church would endure until the end of Creation. :thumb:

After, from Moses down to John the Baptist, the Jews were the true Church with the only way to salvation. If they can lose it, what makes you think it is any different for the church that was started in the first century?

The difference is that the Jewish leaders rejected their Messiah. That's why they lost it. God didn't promise that they would be infallible. But he did promise that His "Rock", His Church, would be. That's the difference. :smile:

It wasn't God who failed, but the members who rejected the true doctrine that the Apostles taught.

Members who didn't bring THE ENTIRE CHURCH down with them, I might add. And I agree GOD didn't fail; the Mormon god did, according to the fable.

Didn't Paul say to Timothy that he was rejected in Asia, which was where most of the members of the church lived at that time? The members in Asia rejected Paul!!! Where do they get off, reject an apostle of Jesus Christ? Do you think you can reject any of the Gospels? If you did, what do you think would happen?

First off, have you ever heard of hyperbole? He's not implying that the entire Church Body in Asia had rejected him. :rofl:

Second, that still leaves the huge population of Egypt and Mesopotamia that stayed faithful, if we're talking numbers here.

Thirdly, we don't know of all of the dealings of God with the people during the time between the first century and the 19th century.

According to your religion, such 'dealings' of God don't matter. The Church had "apostasized", and wouldn't be "restored" until 1820. :lol:

For you to accuse God of being a neglectful parent just because you can't see what is happening sounds like the whinning of a disobedient child.

You're quite funny. Since the whole of Mormon teaching is a big tall-tale, of course GOD isn't a neglectful parent. Just the Mormon version of Him, Her, or They, 'fit that bill'. :wink:

What all the history of the so-called Christian churchs, its intolerances, it tortures of those that disagree, its murders of those who refused, and its persecutions long before the 19th century doesn't sound like the church of a loving God.

:bawl: Sniff...sniff....that was quite a touching story. But, sorry. No convincing argument from you.

And I have point out the 'historical' and 'linguistical' context of the Gates of Hades verse, and you refuse to even provide one line of evidence that contradicts it, other than, that is the way it always was. Sorry but you gotta do better than that.

Sorry, but the "apostasy" deal doesn't stand or fall on what you or I say about the 'Gates of Hades'. Again, the burden of proof is on you and your religion, Mormonism, to prove that Jesus didn't promise that His Church wouldn't prevail to the end, as was always believed.

Now you bring a red herring into this. How about sticking to the subject at hand.

Marvin
You're right, I will. You have enough trouble on your hands already, without me or anyone else bringing up that old 'chestnut' of Mormonism. :hehe:

- OU812

RussianWolfe

April 18th 2006, 04:01 PM

Sigh.

Let's try this again: If my "opinion", concerning the opinion-masquerading-as-fact of the Mormon Church, has any of the "facts" of the matter wrong, it doesn't change that the position of the Mormons on this particular matter is wrong. But it does change the validity of your opinions. Our 'opinion' is in fact revelation from God to his prophets here on earth.

Therefore, since the "apostasy" of Christ's Church is a falsehood, it doesn't matter what year the story says that the "Restoration" of the Church occured; whether it was 1820 or 1976. It's as though your argument goes: "Hey, what year did we, the Mormon Church, say the restoration happened? Oops. I mean, when did the restoration of Christ's Church occur, you heathen? 1820, not 1814! Hah!" And from this, you must be Catholic. This opinion is held by Catholics only, because if you are Protestant, you have undermined your own position.

Precisely. And it's that view point (that of the original context) which undercuts the Mormon position on this matter. And there was no claim on my part to say that it was written to me personally. I guess you are ignoring what I am saying about this scripture. It supports our position because it is not a promise for the eternal security of the Christian church. You have implied that much in your references to it and I am pointing out that the person who originally wrote it did not understand it to mean that. But then, I guess you find it easy to ignore the points you cannot answer.
It sure doesn't fit in with an "apostasy" of the Church, 'after the last apostle died.'It fits in better than any attempt to wrest it into a 'individual believer' paradign.
The world, and His Church.The field represents the world. It does not represent the church.
The believers. I agree.
The unbelievers.I agree.
Apostles and disciples of Jesus. I can agree with this
Jesus.Yes.
Because in their zeal to 'uproot' the unbelievers in the Church, they might remove some of the actual believers, as well. Possibly.
The disciples asked Jesus why he spoke to the multitudes in parables. :smile: I found the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew. I don't see the question that you have asked here. Christ was teaching the people and he taught them in parables.

And when the parable states that 'while men slept', this is a reference to the death of the apostles. And this makes it a parable of the apostasy which did occur after the death of the apostles.
Nah, it's just self-evident that a religion that just came about virtually 'yesterday', isn't going to be too accurate in how to interpret a theological system that's more than 2000 years old, and will get many things wrong. :wink: What you say we got wrong is only a matter of your opinion or our beliefs as contrasted to your beliefs. Only God can say who is right and who is wrong. If you examine the ancient documents, we have more in common with the ancients that you do.
That's not speaking of "APOSTASY OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH", just that certain individuals will openly teach heresy, to lead others astray. The Church Body had and still has the power to cast them out. The fact that the 'Church Body' does not cast them out indicates that they don't have the power. And we differ on our understanding of this verse. To you it is just a few individuals. To us, it is a prophecy that consumed the whole church because there were no apostles to counter it. The Apostles were the foundation and when they were all dead, there was no foundation only the corner stone and that is not a foundation. You cannot build on a cornerstone.
Yes, we know. A 'priesthood of all believers' isn't very conducive to a elitist, theological system that thrives on gnostic-like 'secret knowledge', 'mysteries', and 'levels of perfection'. :ahem: Therefore, you have your own "priesthood hierarchy" - the Melchezidek and the Aaronic - which make Jesus totally redundant.At first I was thought you were talking abou the Old Testament Jews, who had the 'secret knowledge' that was in the temple, the mysteries of Godliness that Paul talks about. But I guess you don't really know what you are talking about since what you descibe could be applied to just about any religious group.
I'm not the one spinning the tall-tales here; that's you and your church that does so. So I don't need to answer your objections to a faith that your church has a hard time grasping.Again you are not addressing the point I have made. What do you do about the gaps that are present in the Bible, and then claim that God will not do what he has already done in the past?
Actually it is unusual, since God said that His Church would endure until the end of Creation. :thumb: Why not give the scripture? If it is the one that I am thinking of the correct Greek word actually said to the end of the era not the end of Creation. But then I could be thinking of another scripture. So let me know whcih one you are talking about. And don't forget that you have to provide evidence that the Gates of Hades had to do with something other than the place of the dead.
The difference is that the Jewish leaders rejected their Messiah. That's why they lost it. God didn't promise that they would be infallible. But he did promise that His "Rock", His Church, would be. That's the difference. :smile: Are you saying that Christ church is infallible?
Members who didn't bring THE ENTIRE CHURCH down with them, I might add. And I agree GOD didn't fail; the Mormon god did, according to the fable.The members of the church rejected the truth of the Gospel by rejecting the truth that the Apostles attempted to teach them.
First off, have you ever heard of hyperbole? He's not implying that the entire Church Body in Asia had rejected him. :rofl: Even if he didn't mean 'all' or the 'entire' church body had rejected him, he made the statement to Timothy for some reason. What was that reason?
Second, that still leaves the huge population of Egypt and Mesopotamia that stayed faithful, if we're talking numbers here. But it still is a sizeable portion of the church that had rejected Paul's authority as an apostle. And this is only one apostle. What about the other? It goes to show what would happen later when the last apostle dies. Then there would be no one to stem the tide of apostasy, and it would run, uncheck by any apostles, until it completely consumed the entire church.
According to your religion, such 'dealings' of God don't matter. The Church had "apostasized", and wouldn't be "restored" until 1820. :lol: And in this you are wrong. We believe that all of the great religious leaders were inspired of God. Martin Luther, John Tyndall and others were inspired of God to do what they did. God has not ceased to work with the children of men, but because of the lack of faith amoung the children of men, God is not able to work with them as well as he could. Remember Christ told the people of his own village that they lacked faith and it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah at the last day than it would be for them because of their lack of faith.
You're quite funny. Since the whole of Mormon teaching is a big tall-tale, of course GOD isn't a neglectful parent. Just the Mormon version of Him, Her, or They, 'fit that bill'. :wink: You were the one who accused God of being a neglectful parent, as if you know all the dealings of God. If anything your version of God is of a neglectful parent since many of the atrocities in Europe were committed under the direction of the 'Christian' church. Do you know what the Spanish Inquisition was?
:bawl: Sniff...sniff....that was quite a touching story. But, sorry. No convincing argument from you. Mocking the facts doesn't answer them. Please explain how these acts can be perpetuated by a church that claims to be Christian?
Sorry, but the "apostasy" deal doesn't stand or fall on what ou or I say about the 'Gates of Hades'. Again, the burden of proof is on you and your religion, Mormonism, to prove that Jesus didn't promise that His Church wouldn't prevail to the end, as was always believed. I have provided the evidence and I can provide more. You have yet to provide any evidence that your understanding is more correct than mine. Do you have any evidence? Other than tradition or your opinion, of course.
You're right, I will. You have enough trouble on your hands already, without me or anyone else bringing up that old 'chestnut' of Mormonism. :hehe: I guess then the testimony of the apostles on the road to Emmaus means nothing to you?

Marvin

OU812

April 18th 2006, 11:59 PM

But it does change the validity of your opinions.

My, you're shooting yourself in the foot, here. The only way that opinion can be 'wrong', is if the Church truly WAS "restored". Then you'd have an argument. I'm not arguing that it was "restored" in 1814; I had just mixed up the year with Joseph Smith's age.

What I AM saying is that it wasn't "restored", period. The Gospel and God's Kingdom were already established for all time. Deal with that, instead of quibbling over what 'year' you think I'm saying is the Mormon belief. :wink:

Our 'opinion' is in fact revelation from God to his prophets here on earth.

Sorry. The fact that you believe that doesn't constitute an argument. :duh:

And from this, you must be Catholic.

Yeah, maybe in your world. :thumbd:

I've got news for you: The phrase "The Church", doesn't primarily mean "particular, visible organization".

This opinion is held by Catholics only, because if you are Protestant, you have undermined your own position.

On the contrary, your position on the "apostasy" of the Church is only held by the Mormons. It was never held by any historic Christian organization. It was never held by the Body of Christ. (Man, have ANY of you guys ever heard of the Eastern Orthodox Churches?)

And contrary to what you think, the "Protestants" are NOT a monolithic group, sharing the exact same positions on matters. For example, the Lutherans don't and didn't believe in the "apostasy" of the Church; their stated mission was REFORMATION, not "restoration".

I guess you are ignoring what I am saying about this scripture. It supports our position because it is not a promise for the eternal security of the Christian church.

That's a circular 'argument', if I've ever heard one. :no: That passage was ALWAYS viewed as refering to the eternal security of the Body of Christ, despite what you or your church says. Like so much else, the position of the Mormons on this matter is a novel one.

You have implied that much in your references to it and I am pointing out that the person who originally wrote it did not understand it to mean that.

Well, considering that you assumed that I'm Catholic, you opinion on this doesn't mean much ( "But it does change the validity of your opinions." Remember that display of brilliant logical deduction on your part? :teeth: ).

Peter, who it was addressed to, understood it the way I've stated it, and so did the writer, Matthew. And subsequently, all of the Body of Christ through time. And speaking of Peter, who is himself, not the "rock" on which Christ built his Church; rather Peter's faith, is that "rock". That faith, is the foundation of the Church. The "Rock", and the "rock", have always been the foundations AND the cornerstone of the Body of Christ, which leaves no room for any "apostasy".

But then, I guess you find it easy to ignore the points you cannot answer.

:rofl:
This is rich coming from you. I'll answer a point, if I see one.

It fits in better than any attempt to wrest it into a 'individual believer' paradigm.

Individual believers, living in a world with individual un-believers. Your point matters not, as you will see.

The field represents the world. It does not represent the church.

Yes, that's the other likely option. There's nothing that says that it can mean both. But, I'll grant that "the world" is the primary meaning.

I agree.

I agree.

I can agree with this.

Yes.

Possibly.

O.K. Now, listen closely:

If, like the passage says, there are believers still, despite the presence of unbelievers in the world - HOW CAN THE BODY OF CHRIST BE "APOSTASIZED"? Where there are 'believers', there is the Body of Christ. Thus, there's no call for "restoration".

A question:
Do unbelievers in the Mormon Church mean that there are no prophets or apostles? Does it mean that the "Restoration" has no effect? Get back to me once you've consulted FARMS. :wink:

I found the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew. I don't see the question that you have asked here. Christ was teaching the people and he taught them in parables.

The question - the only question you will find there - is right after the Parable of the Sower. The disciples ask Jesus why he speaks to the multitudes in parables. He tells them why.

And when the parable states that 'while men slept', this is a reference to the death of the apostles. And this makes it a parable of the apostasy which did occur after the death of the apostles.

So says the Mormon Church, as no apostle, disciple, or fellow servant of Jesus had ever said prior to the Mormons.

As the apostles had successors to be 'shepherds' over the flock, their deaths don't change anything. No, there's no extended ending of that parable with Jesus saying that he's going to plow another 'field' to re-plant the old 'wheat'. Sorry.

What you say we got wrong is only a matter of your opinion or our beliefs as contrasted to your beliefs. Only God can say who is right and who is wrong.

Then stop speaking for God, which goes for your church as well. :wink:

If you examine the ancient documents, we have more in common with the ancients that you do.

Only in your collective minds. The Mormon Church consults their own linguists, their own textual-hermeneutical scholars, their own historians, and their own archeologists. And guess what -- shock!!! -- those who they consult come to conclusions already made by the Mormon leaders.

And Joseph Smith, read the Bible through the lense of a 19th century, Western, incipient-industrialized Christendom. He didn't have the wherewithall to do otherwise, and the same tendency cripples his spiritual descendants.

The fact that the 'Church Body' does not cast them out indicates that they don't have the power.

The believers ARE the Body of Christ.

Again, what do defectors in the Mormon Church say about the so-called "Restored Church of Jesus Christ"?

And we differ on our understanding of this verse. To you it is just a few individuals.

Yes, but more importantly, there will always be unbelievers in the world. Which, once again, doesn't constitute an "apostasy" in the Body of Christ.

To us, it is a prophecy that consumed the whole church because there were no apostles to counter it.

The apostles had successors who countered it. :thumb: And for the third time, the presence of unbelievers doesn't constitute the ruin of Christ's Body.

The Apostles were the foundation and when they were all dead, there was no foundation only the corner stone and that is not a foundation. You cannot build on a cornerstone.

Survey says...........WRONG!!

The foundation is JESUS CHRIST, and the faith in him as the Risen Lord and Son of GOD. Where ever this is proclaimed, there is the Body of Christ.

At first I was thought you were talking abou the Old Testament Jews, who had the 'secret knowledge' that was in the temple, the mysteries of Godliness that Paul talks about.

And you should realise that Inter-Testimental Judaism wasn't a monolithic block, either. You'd need to know that, to get an inkling about some of the 'mysteries' that Paul talks about. (Ever heard of say, the Book of Enoch, or "Merkaba/Chariot Theology"?)

"Secret knowledge" in the temple? That's Masonic horse-hockey. :lmbo:

But I guess you don't really know what you are talking about since what you descibe could be applied to just about any religious group.

"Any" religious group. But not Judaism, Islam or Christianity. Not the Body of Christ. :wink:

Again you are not addressing the point I have made. What do you do about the gaps that are present in the Bible, and then claim that God will not do what he has already done in the past?

And you didn't listen to my answer. What's past is past; GOD didn't promise, for example, the infallibility of the Jews as a collective, priestly-body or state . The difference is, GOD, through Christ, did promiste the integrity of the Body of Christ. If you have a problem with the 'time gaps' in the OT, well................that's you.

Why not give the scripture? If it is the one that I am thinking of the correct Greek word actually said to the end of the era not the end of Creation. But then I could be thinking of another scripture. So let me know whcih one you are talking about. And don't forget that you have to provide evidence that the Gates of Hades had to do with something other than the place of the dead.

Why not give the scripture? Not only because you know it already, but because it isn't what your argument hinges on, obviously. Your m.o. hinges on the authority of The Mormon Church and what they proclaim.

1.The 'end of the era' vs. 'end of Creation'; context is key. There is no coming 'age' after the Church, other than the General Resurrection.

2. As to the Gates of Hades; 'hell' or 'the grave', it matters little. Either way, it doesn't say what your 'authority' wants it to say. There's no 'nullification' of the Body of Christ.

Are you saying that Christ church is infallible?

Bingo!

The members of the church rejected the truth of the Gospel by rejecting the truth that the Apostles attempted to teach them.

Psst.........the members of the Church, are believers, by definition. That's what the Body of Christ is composed of. Thus, being believers, they didn't "reject the truth that the Apostles tried to teach them!"

Even if he didn't mean 'all' or the 'entire' church body had rejected him, he made the statement to Timothy for some reason. What was that reason?

Let's just say that the reason doesn't help your case.

But it still is a sizeable portion of the church that had rejected Paul's authority as an apostle.

Yeah, if you consider the Judaizing party in Galatia to be a 'sizeable portion of the church'. :ahem:

And this is only one apostle. What about the other?

John dealt with heresies, as mentioned in his Epistle of John.

Paul and Peter's tomb were venerated in Rome and in Italy by the Christians there, because they had Apostolic authority there, evidently.

The last time I checked, the faith thrived in Europe overall (not to mention the other places that the faith spread to in the world).

It goes to show what would happen later when the last apostle dies. Then there would be no one to stem the tide of apostasy, and it would run, uncheck by any apostles, until it completely consumed the entire church.

No, it sounds like you confuse what happened in history with the plot of a good Star Wars movie.........:lol: I honestly can't help you out with this delusion of yours. Did the 'tares' destroy the 'wheat'? No. The faith was, and has been kept for 2000 years.

Why are you so hung up on Apostles, anyway? One of your own apostles......apostasized. His name was Oliver Cowdry. :eek: What does that say about your church?

And in this you are wrong. We believe that all of the great religious leaders were inspired of God. Martin Luther, John Tyndall and others were inspired of God to do what they did. God has not ceased to work with the children of men, but because of the lack of faith amoung the children of men, God is not able to work with them as well as he could.

And if Tyndale and Luther were 'inspired'....guess what, that means that had the faith. And there were other believers at that time. Believers in all ages......no 'apostasy'. Your point still 'flies' like a deflated balloon.

Remember Christ told the people of his own village that they lacked faith and it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah at the last day than it would be for them because of their lack of faith.

You have no idea how typology works.

You were the one who accused God of being a neglectful parent, as if you know all the dealings of God.

No, I just accused the Mormon version of god as neglectful. :teeth: But considering that it's one of the fastest growing religions, I guess that means the mormon god is trying to make up for 'lost time'........:lol:

If anything your version of God is of a neglectful parent since many of the atrocities in Europe were committed under the direction of the 'Christian' church. Do you know what the Spanish Inquisition was?

Yes, and it was condoned by 'GOD'...................just like the Mormon 'GOD' or gods condoned polygamy, murdering settlers, and racial bigotry in the 'priesthood' until 1978..............:haha:

A movement that was condoned by the King and Queen of Spain, but not by the Popes in Rome. Next!!!!!

Mocking the facts doesn't answer them. Please explain how these acts can be perpetuated by a church that claims to be Christian?

Nah, I was just mocking your argumentation methods (:bawl: argument by outrage), not any 'facts'.

Since the Roman Catholic Church doesn't alone = the Body of Christ, you have no point here and there's nothing to explain.

I have provided the evidence and I can provide more.

No, thanks. Anything from FARMS need not apply. :teeth:

You have yet to provide any evidence that your understanding is more correct than mine. Do you have any evidence? Other than tradition or your opinion, of course.

No one can pass muster with you regardless, considering your preferred authority and m.o. Your a stereotype, despite your best efforts. :thumb: :smile:

I guess then the testimony of the apostles on the road to Emmaus means nothing to you?

Marvin

It does. There's nothing in there about 'revelations' from "purple clouds", "gem stones", or heartburn after a meal of chili. There's everything about faith being verified by evidence. Tangible evidence, I might say. :smile:

- OU812

OU812

April 19th 2006, 01:32 AM

RussianWolfe

April 19th 2006, 03:48 PM

RussianWolfe:
Just wanted to remind you, in case you haven't yet realized:

Since, according to your "restored church", there was total "apostasy" in the Church after the last Apostle died.....................the Gates of Hades DID prevail against the Church, by this interpretation.

Despite Christ's Resurrection, the dead Apostles stayed 'on the other side of the gate', and thus were unable to counter the unbelief and apostasy. :thumb:

Bravo, Mormon exegesis!
OU812

And you refuse to see the verse for what it means within the historical and linquistical context. The gates are at the entrance to Hades, which is the place of the dead. How you can get some kind of eternal security for the Church I don't know. Christ is talking about the dead, not the church. Other than this misunderstood verse, there are no other verses that promise that the church will last. In fact, the verses that I referred to from Paul, clearly point out that there would be a falling away, which is an apostasy. When the council of Nicea was called (by a pagan not by the church) it was a clear indication that the church that survived at that point was not the Church that Christ started or the apostles were leading. Why? Because the apostles had no doubts about who or what Christ was. But the council of Nicea was called because there were questions. And where in the Bible did this ever happen? And when did a pagan ever determine what the church was to believe as Constantine did when he presided over the council of Nicea. At that point, it is obvious that the apostasy was complete.

Marvin

Krusader

April 19th 2006, 04:18 PM

And you refuse to see the verse for what it means within the historical and linquistical context. The gates are at the entrance to Hades, which is the place of the dead. How you can get some kind of eternal security for the Church I don't know. Christ is talking about the dead, not the church. Other than this misunderstood verse, there are no other verses that promise that the church will last. In fact, the verses that I referred to from Paul, clearly point out that there would be a falling away, which is an apostasy. When the council of Nicea was called (by a pagan not by the church) it was a clear indication that the church that survived at that point was not the Church that Christ started or the apostles were leading. Why? Because the apostles had no doubts about who or what Christ was. But the council of Nicea was called because there were questions. And where in the Bible did this ever happen? And when did a pagan ever determine what the church was to believe as Constantine did when he presided over the council of Nicea. At that point, it is obvious that the apostasy was complete.

Marvin

The big flaw in your argument is that you are equating Roman Catholicism with Christ's Church. The Church is the mystical, invisible body of Christ, made up of ALL born again believers. And, I would also recommend that you read "The Pilgrim Church," by Broadbent, which will clarify for you the meaning of what Christ's Church is. You are mistaking organization for the Body of Christ - the same mistake made by Jehovah's Witnesses.

OU812

April 19th 2006, 10:08 PM

And you refuse to see the verse for what it means within the historical and linquistical context.

Say that in front of a mirror 300 times............................ then you might get it. :lol:

The gates are at the entrance to Hades, which is the place of the dead. How you can get some kind of eternal security for the Church I don't know.

How do you get that the security for the Church only lasts while the Apostles are still living? (of course, without adding a new 'ending' to the Parable of the Tares and the Wheat.....:teeth: )

How do you NOT get, that under your own interpretation and that of Mormonism, The Gates of Hades, after all, DID prevail against the Church, since this interpretation says that "apostasy" came with the death of the last apostle. That's YOUR view, not mine, and not historic Christianity's.

Christ is talking about the dead, not the church.

What?

:huh:

Other than this misunderstood verse, there are no other verses that promise that the church will last.

'Misunderstood' by the Mormons, that's right.

Yeah, everyone 'got it all wrong', until the Joseph Smith Annotated Bible was published......:ahem:

In fact, the verses that I referred to from Paul, clearly point out that there would be a falling away, which is an apostasy.

:eww:

Paul says no more than Jesus did; that there would always be unbelievers in the world. There was never a dispute that in the midst of believers, there would be found unbelievers. The future "apostasy" is a pipe-dream of your church.

When the council of Nicea was called (by a pagan not by the church) it was a clear indication that the church that survived at that point was not the Church that Christ started or the apostles were leading. Why? Because the apostles had no doubts about who or what Christ was. But the council of Nicea was called because there were questions.

Survey says.................wrong answer!! :thumbd:

The council wasn't called because people - least of all believers - had 'doubts about who or what Christ was'. The council was called due to disagreements in the Church at Alexandria over Jesus's relationship to the Father; whether he was of the same substance (the Orthodox view), or of a different but similar substance (the view of Arius, a presbyter). That's something that the NT wasn't precisely clear on. The purpose of the council was to resolve the disagreement, not least of all the creation of the 'Nicean Creed', which formulated the relationships of the Godhead.

And where in the Bible did this ever happen?

Ever heard of the dispute concerning 'ritual purity laws' in Acts 15, spurred on by Peter?? :wink:

And when did a pagan ever determine what the church was to believe as Constantine did when he presided over the council of Nicea. At that point, it is obvious that the apostasy was complete.

Marvin

First off, Constantine was a believer by this time (though unbabtized).

Second, he didn't "determine" what the Church was to believe. He presided over the council. The Arians - the heretical followers of Arius - were in the actual majority at that time, and their ranks would include the next two Emperors on the throne. Yet despite that, the Church did NOT become Arian in theology. So there goes your pedestrian research theory down the drain!:rofl:

- OU812

PaulT

April 20th 2006, 06:11 PM

Say that in front of a mirror 300 times............................ then you might get it. :lol:

How do you get that the security for the Church only lasts while the Apostles are still living? (of course, without adding a new 'ending' to the Parable of the Tares and the Wheat.....:teeth: )

How do you NOT get, that under your own interpretation and that of Mormonism, The Gates of Hades, after all, DID prevail against the Church, since this interpretation says that "apostasy" came with the death of the last apostle. That's YOUR view, not mine, and not historic Christianity's.

What?

:huh:

'Misunderstood' by the Mormons, that's right.

Yeah, everyone 'got it all wrong', until the Joseph Smith Annotated Bible was published......:ahem:

:eww:

Paul says no more than Jesus did; that there would always be unbelievers in the world. There was never a dispute that in the midst of believers, there would be found unbelievers. The future "apostasy" is a pipe-dream of your church.

Survey says.................wrong answer!! :thumbd:

The council wasn't called because people - least of all believers - had 'doubts about who or what Christ was'. The council was called due to disagreements in the Church at Alexandria over Jesus's relationship to the Father; whether he was of the same substance (the Orthodox view), or of a different but similar substance (the view of Arius, a presbyter). That's something that the NT wasn't precisely clear on. The purpose of the council was to resolve the disagreement, not least of all the creation of the 'Nicean Creed', which formulated the relationships of the Godhead.

Ever heard of the dispute concerning 'ritual purity laws' in Acts 15, spurred on by Peter?? :wink:

First off, Constantine was a believer by this time (though unbabtized).

Second, he didn't "determine" what the Church was to believe. He presided over the council. The Arians - the heretical followers of Arius - were in the actual majority at that time, and their ranks would include the next two Emperors on the throne. Yet despite that, the Church did NOT become Arian in theology. So there goes your pedestrian research theory down the drain!:rofl:

- OU812
RussianWolfe,

What I'm I, chopped liver, why no response to my question?

Regards,
Paul

serapha

April 21st 2006, 02:14 AM

Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters

John A. Tvedtnes, Stephen D. Ricks

Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1996. Pp. 156–63

While from FARMS, the evidence is not. This is just a summary of the evidence available from various sources as cited in footnote 15.

Footnote 15:

[/i]

While not conclusive, this does show that it was not uncommon for the Hebrews to use Egyptian characters to write various records. The fact that a version of Psalm 20 exists written in Egyptian characters using the Hebrew language gives support to the idea that the Hebrews at the very least used this method of recording their thoughts.

Marvin

Hi there!

:smile:

I want to bring out one point on this subject... there is not a single piece of evidence from the frankincense trail to indicate reformed Egyptian was used in that area. By implying there is a possibility of such text is not an evidence for a text. The Saudi desert (and Frankencense Trail) is very dry... water holes about every 15 miles for watering the camels, but otherwise.... very arid. If there any written evidences on parchment or papyrus, they could be preserved.

In 1965, during excavations at the southern Judean site of Arad, a number of ostraca were found. Most of the documents were written in Hebrew and dated to ca. 598-587 B.C.16 One, however, dating "to the seventh century B.C.," was written in Egyptian hieratic.17 Here, then, was evidence that Egyptian writing was known in an Israelite city. This was not surprising, for Egyptian documents from an earlier time had been discovered at the Phoenician (Lebanese) city of Byblos.

Footnotes....

16. Yohanan Aharoni, "Hebrew Ostraca from Tel Arad," Israel Exploration Journal 16/1 (1966): 1-7.

17. Shlomo Yeivin, "A Hieratic Ostracon from Tel Arad," Israel Exploration Journal 16/3 (1966): 153-59.

Now... for clarity... there is no evidence that the ostraca identified in the text was written by a Jew. Arad was a trade center, a collection point for purchasing and storing military supplies. Amihai Mazar identifies the literary accomplishment of the Jewish people in his text, "Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE" and his conclusion is that most of the Arad ostraca were official documents with no reference to Egyptian or reformed Egyptian. John Tvedtnes identifies that this is evidence that there were people in the century before Lehi/Nephi leaving Jerusalem that were knowledgeable in both languages which simply cannot be proven. With Arad being a trade center, the ostraca could have originated from anywhere. That it was found in a trade center is not an evidence that it was written in that same trade center.

I do know from researching the ANE forum that this particular ostracon uses letters for numerics. Is that determined to be a part of reformed Egyptian?

Or even Egyptian? no... it is not... which, BTW... John Tvedtnes has stated that letters are not used for numerics in pre-exile times, citing this same ostracon (source). Kinda blows the theory that

Here, then, was evidence that Egyptian writing was known in an Israelite city.

https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2005-February/017968.html

~serapha~

serapha

April 21st 2006, 02:32 AM

And you refuse to see the verse for what it means within the historical and linquistical context. The gates are at the entrance to Hades, which is the place of the dead.

Marvin

Hello Marvin,

Within the historical context,

The location is Caesarea Philippi, and the mythological belief was that when the water levels were lowered in the tributary to the Jordon that originated within the cave, that the gates of hell were opened, and it wasn't dead people that came forth... but demons. Demons ... not dead people.

Christ was talking about how satan and his demons will not be able to stand against His church. Now... just for clarity... I didn't make this up... you can read it anywhere on the internet ... just do a search for "pan" "Caesarea Philippi" and "gates of Hell" and you will get the same information I provided.

How you can get some kind of eternal security for the Church I don't know. Christ is talking about the dead, not the church. Other than this misunderstood verse, there are no other verses that promise that the church will last.

You have misunderstood the historical text of the passage...

Now.. let's look at the linguistical context.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mt&chapter=16&verse=18

Christ would be in Abraham's bosom, ... and the gates of Abraham's bosom would not be able to hold him in death.

He would rise again. In fact, He DID rise again.

~serapha~

RussianWolfe

April 21st 2006, 10:20 AM

RussianWolfe,

What I'm I, chopped liver, why no response to my question?

Regards,
Paul

The first post from you above this one, you quote OU812. Are you in fact addressing me? From the post it looks like you are addressing OU812 not me.

Marvin

PaulT

April 21st 2006, 04:18 PM

The first post from you above this one, you quote OU812. Are you in fact addressing me? From the post it looks like you are addressing OU812 not me.

Marvin

Sorry about that, I thought it might be confusing after reading it over once it was posted, but figured I would give it a day to see if you responded.

Yes my question was for you and is tied back to post #56 of this thread.

Regards,

Paul

RussianWolfe

April 24th 2006, 09:46 AM

Hello RussianWolfe

Forgive me for butting in, but you said,

In response to this,

Quote: Originally posted by OU812

“It's not surprising at all that your church, and their 'hermeneutical doctors', are the only group that believes such a thing. It's in the Mormon Church's vested interest that the entire spectrum of Christendom had it "wrong", prior to Joseph Smith.”

It sounds like you are finally acknowledging that the Mormon Church fundamentally changed to core doctrines of the Christian faith. What “vested” interest would there be for God to allow His people to have a false understanding of who He was for close to 2000 years? Have you come to grips with why God would have left His flock with the wrong impression of who He is for so long?

Regards,

Paul

I have not acknowledged any such thing. The fact is, from the first century to the second century, a lot was lost. Look at the documents from that time and look at the Council of Nicea. Why was the council even necessary? Was Peter's declaration, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, a reasonable argument for the existence of God or a set of sylogisms that prove that Christ was the Savior of the World? But at the conclusion of the Council of Nicea, it was somehow necessary for a carefully worded argument be presented to define who and what God and Christ were. If anyone changed the core doctrines of Christianity it happened a long time before the council of Nicea.

As for the time when God left men on their own, you have yet to explain why God left the children of Israel for 400 years after Joseph or for 600 years after Malachi. When you can explain these gaps, then I will be able to explain your gap.

Marvin

RussianWolfe

April 24th 2006, 09:49 AM

Hello Marvin,

Within the historical context,

The location is Caesarea Philippi, and the mythological belief was that when the water levels were lowered in the tributary to the Jordon that originated within the cave, that the gates of hell were opened, and it wasn't dead people that came forth... but demons. Demons ... not dead people.

Christ was talking about how satan and his demons will not be able to stand against His church. Now... just for clarity... I didn't make this up... you can read it anywhere on the internet ... just do a search for "pan" "Caesarea Philippi" and "gates of Hell" and you will get the same information I provided.

You have misunderstood the historical text of the passage...

Now.. let's look at the linguistical context.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mt&chapter=16&verse=18

Christ would be in Abraham's bosom, ... and the gates of Abraham's bosom would not be able to hold him in death.

He would rise again. In fact, He DID rise again.

~serapha~

And your explanation does not explain how you get from this to eternal security of the Christian church.

And your explanation of the tributory and all that was just nonsense. This world here and now is the realm of Satan. He is sometimes call the prince of this world and so times the god of this world and will be call such until Christ comes and casts him out.

Marvin

Krusader

April 24th 2006, 10:46 AM

And your explanation does not explain how you get from this to eternal security of the Christian church.

And your explanation of the tributory and all that was just nonsense. This world here and now is the realm of Satan. He is sometimes call the prince of this world and so times the god of this world and will be call such until Christ comes and casts him out.

Marvin

But Jesus said, "be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." A Mormon can have absolutely no understanding of the security and victory a Christian has in Christ. For the Mormon, Jesus was so weak that He couldn't even preserve His Church (which He promised to do), and the Holy Spirit is so impotent that He was unable to lead Christ's Church into all truth (as Jesus prophesied).

Mormonism is a man-made religion with no understanding of security or assurance. Over on one Islamic site that I have visited, the resident Mormon there actually preaches about how Islam and Mormonism have so much in common. Well, they sure do - let's start with false prophets and polygamy. Seems the two go together.

Spiritual things are discerned by those who are spiritual (indwelt by the Holy Spirit), and a Mormon, unfortunately, will never experience that discernment until they have renounced the false doctrines of their false prophet and placed their faith in the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of history. Until then, you might as well be Muslims.

OU812

April 24th 2006, 01:56 PM

Look at the documents from that time and look at the Council of Nicea. Why was the council even necessary?

The Council was necessary to settle the troubles in the Alexandrian church caused by the Arian heresy.

Was Peter's declaration, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, a reasonable argument for the existence of God or a set of sylogisms that prove that Christ was the Savior of the World?

It was neither. It was a demonstration of not only Peter's faith, but the faith and foundation upon which the Church would be built.

But at the conclusion of the Council of Nicea, it was somehow necessary for a carefully worded argument be presented to define who and what God and Christ were.

The "somehow" being the fact that the New Testament is not a doctrinal treatise, for one.

What you had at the Council of Nicea, was the formal language of 'doctrine'; not only designed to state where the Church 'stood', but to deter further dishonest manipulation of the core tenets concerning God and Christ.

If anyone changed the core doctrines of Christianity it happened a long time before the council of Nicea.

But you've yet proved that core doctrines or tenets of Christianity were 'changed'.

As for the time when God left men on their own, you have yet to explain why God left the children of Israel for 400 years after Joseph or for 600 years after Malachi. When you can explain these gaps, then I will be able to explain your gap.

Marvin

Since the Christian faith doesn't stand or fall on such "gaps", but the Mormon faith does, no 'explanations' are necessary, thank you. :thumb:

- OU812

RussianWolfe

April 24th 2006, 03:48 PM

But Jesus said, "be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." A Mormon can have absolutely no understanding of the security and victory a Christian has in Christ. For the Mormon, Jesus was so weak that He couldn't even preserve His Church (which He promised to do), and the Holy Spirit is so impotent that He was unable to lead Christ's Church into all truth (as Jesus prophesied).Christ did not fail. The people rejected the truth. So Mormon's do not believe that Christ was weak in any way. It was the people that failed not Christ.

The Holy Spirit led all who were willing to all truth. The problem was the people were more willing to believe a false apostle and reject Paul that to allow the Spirit to lead them to the truth.

Where was Paul's security when at the end of his life, the only thing he could say was he ran a good race? How can you talk of a security that Paul didn't seem to know when he faced the end of his life?

Mormonism is a man-made religion with no understanding of security or assurance. Over on one Islamic site that I have visited, the resident Mormon there actually preaches about how Islam and Mormonism have so much in common. Well, they sure do - let's start with false prophets and polygamy. Seems the two go together.

Spiritual things are discerned by those who are spiritual (indwelt by the Holy Spirit), and a Mormon, unfortunately, will never experience that discernment until they have renounced the false doctrines of their false prophet and placed their faith in the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of history. Until then, you might as well be Muslims.

Then I guess I should call you Muhammed?

Marvin

RussianWolfe

April 24th 2006, 03:58 PM

The Council was necessary to settle the troubles in the Alexandrian church caused by the Arian heresy.

It was neither. It was a demonstration of not only Peter's faith, but the faith and foundation upon which the Church would be built.

But all of the doctrine since the Council of Nicea has been proven by carefully worded logical statements.

The controversy that cause the council of Nicea was started by leaders of the Christian church. Why didn't these leaders know the God that they worshipped? Isn't that what Christianity is all about? And if the leaders don't know God, then how can they teach the lay people?

The "somehow" being the fact that the New Testament is not a doctrinal treatise, for one.

And yet you use it as if it were.

What you had at the Council of Nicea, was the formal language of 'doctrine'; not only designed to state where the Church 'stood', but to deter further dishonest manipulation of the core tenets concerning God and Christ.

And approved of by a pagen emperor in a council called by that same emperor under the authority of that emperor. Where in the Bible does it allow pagan rulers to determine what the church believes?

But you've yet proved that core doctrines or tenets of Christianity were 'changed'.

Since the Christian faith doesn't stand or fall on such "gaps", but the Mormon faith does, no 'explanations' are necessary, thank you. :thumb:

My point is that God has in the past allowed these gaps. It is not unexpected that there was a gap of any length after the Apostasy had a grip. So you still have to explain the gaps that I have pointed out.

- OU812

OU812

April 24th 2006, 03:59 PM

Mormonism is a man-made religion with no understanding of security or assurance. Over on one Islamic site that I have visited, the resident Mormon there actually preaches about how Islam and Mormonism have so much in common. Well, they sure do - let's start with false prophets and polygamy. Seems the two go together.

Spiritual things are discerned by those who are spiritual (indwelt by the Holy Spirit), and a Mormon, unfortunately, will never experience that discernment until they have renounced the false doctrines of their false prophet and placed their faith in the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of history. Until then, you might as well be Muslims.

Crusader, there's no need in bringing up another religion, by comparing Mormonism with Islam. The Mormon faith can take up the 'veracity challenge' all on it's own, without such comparison.

- OU812

OU812

April 24th 2006, 04:08 PM

Christ did not fail. The people rejected the truth. So Mormon's do not believe that Christ was weak in any way. It was the people that failed not Christ.

Christ still 'fails', under your scheme, even if indirectly. Apparently, according to you guys, the only way the Church would have been any good is if we had 'immortal' Apostles. :lol:

The Holy Spirit led all who were willing to all truth. The problem was the people were more willing to believe a false apostle and reject Paul that to allow the Spirit to lead them to the truth.

If that were true, how did Christianity make any headway? :huh:

Where was Paul's security when at the end of his life, the only thing he could say was he ran a good race? How can you talk of a security that Paul didn't seem to know when he faced the end of his life?

When did GOD or Jesus promise immortality, in the sense of living forever here , on Earth?

Why would it matter 'when' Paul's time was up, if it were all in God's hands anyway?

OU812

April 24th 2006, 04:25 PM

But all of the doctrine since the Council of Nicea has been proven by carefully worded logical statements.

And??

The controversy that cause the council of Nicea was started by leaders of the Christian church.

No, it wasn't started by 'the leaders'. Arius was a presbyter - a priest - at Alexandria.

Why didn't these leaders know the God that they worshipped? Isn't that what Christianity is all about? And if the leaders don't know God, then how can they teach the lay people?

Why don't you ask some more questions that merely assert what they're supposed to be addressing? :smile:

And yet you use it as if it were.

Where and when?

I am not of the 'Sola Scriptura' crowd. I don't know who or what you're confusing me with.

And approved of by a pagen emperor in a council called by that same emperor under the authority of that emperor.

I've dealt with the 'pagan emperor' thing already, which you ignored. Once again, Constantine was already a Christian.

And besides, what were you expecting, anyway? A "President" of the Church, to call the council?
Oh, no! We're all 'lost' without 'immortal super-Apostles'!! :ahem:

Where in the Bible does it allow pagan rulers to determine what the church believes?

Since when does the Bible determine what happens in History?

Since there were two professing 'Arian-Christian' Emperors after Constanine, how come the Church didn't subsequently profess Arian doctrine? :huh:

So much for pagan rulers "determining" what the Church believes. :no:

My point is that God has in the past allowed these gaps. It is not unexpected that there was a gap of any length after the Apostasy had a grip. So you still have to explain the gaps that I have pointed out.

:thumbd:

Difference being, those 'gaps' in the Bible, WERE NOT PERIODS OF APOSTASY. Otoh, what you guys promote as what happened after the Apostles died, wasn't just God not 'speaking' for a while, but the utter destruction of everything by which Christ and Apostles founded and suffered for.

So, no 'explanation' is needed.

- OU812

serapha

April 25th 2006, 01:39 AM

And your explanation does not explain how you get from this to eternal security of the Christian church.

And your explanation of the tributory and all that was just nonsense. This world here and now is the realm of Satan. He is sometimes call the prince of this world and so times the god of this world and will be call such until Christ comes and casts him out.

Marvin

Hi there!

:smile:

Since when is historical evidences called "nonsense"?????

I didn't interpret the statement, I gave the KNOWN historical reference. If historical references are to be called "nonsense" ... well.... what can I say?

Since the same area had a temple to Pan, the mythological god of the underworld, do you think that Jesus was still referring to the "gates of hell" as the place of dead bodies when the Greek mythology has it a place of dead and wandering spirits (demons)?

Remember, I didn't write Greek mythology, but it is apparent from biblical statements that Jesus and the disciples were knowledgeable of Greek mythology. Being at Caesarea Philippi was not a coincidence in this biblical account.

~serapha~

serapha

April 25th 2006, 01:57 AM

Where was Paul's security when at the end of his life, the only thing he could say was he ran a good race? How can you talk of a security that Paul didn't seem to know when he faced the end of his life?

Marvin

Paul knew he was sealed in the Spirit.

1 Cor 1:21
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

sealed to the day of redemption...

Ephesians 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
1:14
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

The use of the work "earnest" is a deposit with a guaranteed return. It's a legal term used in ancient times and still used today as in "earnest money" in downpayment on a house with the assurance of a guaranteed return of property ownership.

It is a witness of the Spirit that we are God's.

~serapha~

RussianWolfe

April 25th 2006, 10:12 AM

Hi there!

:smile:

Since when is historical evidences called "nonsense"?????

I didn't interpret the statement, I gave the KNOWN historical reference. If historical references are to be called "nonsense" ... well.... what can I say?

Since the same area had a temple to Pan, the mythological god of the underworld, do you think that Jesus was still referring to the "gates of hell" as the place of dead bodies when the Greek mythology has it a place of dead and wandering spirits (demons)?

Remember, I didn't write Greek mythology, but it is apparent from biblical statements that Jesus and the disciples were knowledgeable of Greek mythology. Being at Caesarea Philippi was not a coincidence in this biblical account.

~serapha~

The attempt to link Christ to Greek mythology is nonsense. Christ didn't need anything but the truth to define his doctrine.

The Gates of Hades were in the realm of the dead not in this world, where the living are and your 'demons' would be. It is here in our world that Satan is to be conquered and his power broken - he has no other place to flee to. This world, the here and now, is the realm of Satan and when he does go to Hell, it will not be triumph but to be bound and imprisoned there for 1,000 years 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Marvin

Krusader

April 25th 2006, 11:43 AM

Christ did not fail. The people rejected the truth. So Mormon's do not believe that Christ was weak in any way. It was the people that failed not Christ.

The Holy Spirit led all who were willing to all truth. The problem was the people were more willing to believe a false apostle and reject Paul that to allow the Spirit to lead them to the truth.

Where was Paul's security when at the end of his life, the only thing he could say was he ran a good race? How can you talk of a security that Paul didn't seem to know when he faced the end of his life?

Then I guess I should call you Muhammed?

Marvin

No Russian, but you should call Joe Smith the American Mohammed. His first encounter with the "gods" Elohim and Jesus in the grove was very similar in nature to Mohammed, the false Prophet of Arabia. Mohammed denied that Jesus died on the cross, while Mormons hate the cross so much that they teach that Jesus atoned for sins in the Garden; Mohammed used his "prophethood" to molest young girls (look at his child-bride Aisha), while Smith also used his "prophethood" to consort sexually with a mulititude of women (some sisters), all the time claiming God's approval (actually, he probably had his "god's" approval - and I don't mean the Christian God, I refer to the god of this world).

You know, I feel sorry for you Mormons because Mormonism is a real "do it yourself" religion. You have to keep a bunch of man-made rules; you know nothing of security in Christ, and you are hoping to become gods and goddesses, which is idolatry. And it all is founded on man's faithfulness and not God's.

If you would crack open a Bible for once, putting the silly BOM aside with its ludicrous stories and boring narratives, then you would find in Ephesians, chapter 1, that God has chosen the Body of Christ "from the foundation" of the world. He knew who would be saved; He drew them to Christ; He filled them with the Holy Spirit. He preserves us to the end. Our faithfulness does not depend on our meager abilities, but rather on His wonderful grace and promises.

You, on the other hand, believe God is powerless to keep His Church and to lead it into all truth. And that is because your concept of God is so warped and inferior to that taught in Scripture (you believe Elohim, your god, was once a sinful man), that it is impossible for you to understand just how omnipotent and loving the True God is - the God of Scripture. You do not have a clue about God's keeping power.

You have a powerless deity (deities) who cannot give you peace.

RussianWolfe

April 25th 2006, 03:57 PM

No Russian, but you should call Joe Smith the American Mohammed. His first encounter with the "gods" Elohim and Jesus in the grove was very similar in nature to Mohammed, the false Prophet of Arabia.

I am not familiar with Mohammed's first vision, but what I am familiary with says that Mohammed never saw God but only Gabriel, an angel. He never handled anything, but in dreams only read a book, over 20 years, and then wrote that down. Now quite like Joseph Smith, who saw God and Jesus Christ, had the plates, translated them, had 11 other people to witness for him that the plate were real and that they were of God, and published his translation for all the world to see. Doesn't sound a bit like Mohammed to me.

Mohammed denied that Jesus died on the cross, while Mormons hate the cross so much that they teach that Jesus atoned for sins in the Garden;

In the priesthood manual, in the 70s, we were taught that Atonement began in the Garden, culimnated on the cross but didn't end until Christ was resurrected. I have read that cruxifiction on the cross was nearly bloodless while to bleed at every pore involved a much larger quantity of blood. But, as far as I believe, the Atonement was not complete until the resurrection. While no one has ever bled at every pore as survived as Christ did, a lot of people died on the cross, making it a most unnoteworthy incident. But Christ was the first to be resurrected, which no one had ever done before.

Mohammed used his "prophethood" to molest young girls (look at his child-bride Aisha), while Smith also used his "prophethood" to consort sexually with a mulititude of women (some sisters), all the time claiming God's approval (actually, he probably had his "god's" approval - and I don't mean the Christian God, I refer to the god of this world).

Then I guess you class Joseph Smith along with Abraham, Jacob (who married sisters), David the King, and Moses. Quite good company, I think.

You know, I feel sorry for you Mormons because Mormonism is a real "do it yourself" religion. You have to keep a bunch of man-made rules; you know nothing of security in Christ, and you are hoping to become gods and goddesses, which is idolatry. And it all is founded on man's faithfulness and not God's.

Then I guess the parables of Christ mean nothing to you. In every parable, the good guy has to do something. And in one parable, the bad guys are chastised because they don't do what they are suppose to do.

If you would crack open a Bible for once, putting the silly BOM aside with its ludicrous stories and boring narratives, then you would find in Ephesians, chapter 1, that God has chosen the Body of Christ "from the foundation" of the world. He knew who would be saved;

Are we talking predestination now? If so, then why talk to me. Isn't it obvious that God has already determined, even before I was born, that I was not be to saved?

He drew them to Christ; He filled them with the Holy Spirit. He preserves us to the end. Our faithfulness does not depend on our meager abilities, but rather on His wonderful grace and promises.

And thusly you have cheapened the Atonement and set at nought the words of Christ.

You, on the other hand, believe God is powerless to keep His Church and to lead it into all truth.

As I have explained before, it was the people who reject God. Just as in the OT when God attempted to prepare the people to see his face, they refused and asked Moses to intercede for them with God. Was God powerless then?

And that is because your concept of God is so warped and inferior to that taught in Scripture (you believe Elohim, your god, was once a sinful man), that it is impossible for you to understand just how omnipotent and loving the True God is - the God of Scripture. You do not have a clue about God's keeping power.

Can you quote your reference that says explicitly that we believe that God was once sinful? And don't quote Lorenzo Snow's statement, because that refers to our mortality not our sinfulness. Remember that Christ was just like us once, but without sin. Are you going to say that he was sinful? I think Paul would disagre with you on that.

You have a powerless deity (deities) who cannot give you peace.

And you have a diety created in whole from Greek philosophy that has nothing to do with revelation but everything to logic and philosophy, which Paul warned against specifically.

The peace I have was not the peace that the world gives. I have a witness from God through his Spirit that ha sustained me until this day. All of your attempts have resulted in nothing. All of the literature created by your kind have resulted in nothing. Most of the time, as you have demonstrated here, your statements are based on misrepresenting what I believe and have no connection with what I truly believe. How can you present to me the truth, when you can't even understand what I believe.

Marvin